Inspired by last week’s hijacking of the Sirius Star, the largest boat ever stolen. Here is the list of the most expensive things ever physically stolen at one time мебели варнаcarrier to noise ratio(excluding antiquities, fraud, embezzlement, and other things of that nature). Honorable mention goes to the thieves who almost took $200m in diamonds from the Millennium Dome, and the ones who stole 20 Van Goghs ($10m each) from a museum in Amsterdam only to leave them in their getaway car.

On the day she was killed, Benazir Bhutto was hours away from handing over a report to two American congressmen proving that Ijaz Shah and the ISI were planning on rigging the Jan. 8 elections against her. Of course, Neoconservative commentator Robert Novak predicted this would be the case in a column he wrote last month.

Conservative columnist Robert Novak frequently comments on “elections.”

“Twenty million names have disappeared from the national voters list, whose preparation was financed with U.S. aid. When this was discovered, the government said that anybody on the old list would be permitted to vote. But the new list is flawed, with millions of names repeated to permit multiple votes by individuals. Musharraf’s efforts to keep Bhutto out have been orchestrated for two years by retired brigadier Ijaz Shah, who left Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence agency (ISI) to become the president’s chief of civilian intelligence. The ISI, a state within a state, is aligned against Bhutto and would be at the heart of any vote-rigging.”- Robert Novak, 12/3/07

Bhutto’s report, in addition to her Oct. 16th letter to Musharraf, also implicates Ijaz Shah as spearheading the plot to stop her candidacy - either by election fraud or by assassination. Her report was compiled from intelligence sources within the ISI, and just as Novak predicted, US money was being used to set up rigging centers in 100 parliamentary constituencies. If Novak could predict this, the Bush administration could too. A State Dept. official admitted on December 6 that “the elections [in Pakistan] won’t be perfect.” Yet, Bush still described Musharraf as “someone who believes in democracy.” Even Robert Novak, a partisan hack most famous for committing an act of treason on the administration’s behalf, had to ask: was the president of the United States issuing Musharraf a free pass to rig next month’s elections in Pakistan? If so, it would make sense why Bhutto would want to give her report to two American Congressmen, and not directly to the White House. One of her aides said that the report was “very sensitive,” and that they preferred to share it with trusted politicians rather than the Bush administration. According to Novak’s most recent column on the assassination, Bhutto expressed great distress about the Administration’s ambivalence, but like the email she sent to CNN, asked him not to write about it.

Benazir Bhutto was used to ambivalence from the White House, but lucky for her, she always had something to offer. According to the obituary that ran last Sunday in the New York Times, Bhutto gained favor with George Bush Sr. by promising to fund the Mujahideen against the Soviets in 1988. With that support from her network in Washington she successfully became Pakistan’s first female Prime Minister, in spite of her father’s opposition to CIA/ISI. “Had the Americans not put their foot down, the military-intelligence services would have stopped her” said her former adviser. Eventually Bhutto realized the Mujahideen’s power was growing beyond her control, and in the late 80’s she told Bush Sr., “you are creating a Frankenstein.”

Last year, Bhutto promised again to fight America’s enemies, except this time it would be the same “Frankenstein” she helped create. Her speeches indicate she was actually willing to do it, too, emphasizing Musharraf’s failure to drive Al Qaeda/Taliban fighters from Pakistan’s northwestern provinces. Whether her rhetoric was genuine or not we’ll never know, but most people in Washington, including Neocons like Robert Novak, really believed she could fight the war on terror better than Musharraf. Ostensibly, this is why the White House demanded she be allowed to return to Pakistan. Why then did George W. Bush not put his foot down like his father did? “The assassination of Benazir Bhutto followed two months of urgent pleas to the State Department by her representatives for better protection,” says Novak. “The U.S. reaction was that she was worried over nothing, expressing assurance that Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf would not let anything happen to her.”

If she was proven to be tougher on Islamic radicals, and was thus in constant danger, why were her pleas for extra protection rebuffed not just by the regime in Pakistan, but by our own State Department and CIA (not to mention Mossad and Scotland Yard)? Bhutto’s report showed that in addition to planning to rig the elections through acts of terrorism and electronic hacking, that “ninety percent of the equipment that the USA gave the government of Pakistan to fight terrorism is being used to monitor and to keep a check on their political opponents.” Perhaps the Administration thinks our money is better spent doing that than fighting Al Qaeda and the Taliban. But what good would that do anyway?

Besides the clip from CNN below, American journalists seem to be taking the party line from Pakistan with regards to the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. First they said she was shot in the neck and chest. Then it was a piece of shrapnel. Then it was a neck fracture. Now they’re saying she died of a fractured skull after ducking into her sunroof too quickly. Her aide, who brought her body to the hospital, called this “bizarre, dangerous nonsense … it’s beginning to look like a cover-up.” The aide claimed that in addition to the gunman carrying the bomb, there was also a sniper on a nearby building. Of course, it doesn’t really matter how she died. Thankfully, the London Times and the Guardian are covering the far more prescient issue: could Bhutto’s assassins have been backed up by the ISI? Do we have any reason to believe anything this Brigadier General tells us, about intelligence intercepts or her cause of death? These are the same people who tried to show western journalists a video of the arrest of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed only to have it mocked as a forgery by the few reporters allowed to see it.

Email Bhutto told CNN not to report on unless she was killed.

I bring up this point because not only did Khalid Sheikh Mohammad fund the attempt on Bhutto’s life in 1993 when she was running for re-election, but he was protected by the ISI after he did it. Reports show KSM sent his nephew, Ramzi Yousef, who planned the WTC bombing 5 months before, to carry out the assassination. But before Bhutto’s rally began, Yousef was caught by a police patrol and the bomb went off prematurely. Later that year US Agents found photos of KSM and Yousef with associates of Bhutto’s political rival, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, a longtime friend to the ISI famous for receiving millions of dollars from Bin Laden. This is the same guy who underscored yesterday’s assassination with “it is not a sad day, it is a dark, darkest, gloomiest day in the history of this country. Something unthinkable has happened. Something inconceivable, unthinkable has happened.”
First off, this was arguably the most conceivable, forseeable assassination in the history of assassinations. In a park named after an assassination. How many times does a person have to narrowly escape being assassinated before they get some police escorts who don’t abandon their posts right before the shooting starts? This woman’s main security were a bunch of guys wearing white tees inscribed “willing to die for Benazir.” Second, it’s not like people didn’t know the ISI was targeting her just cause Wolf Blitzer was sworn to secrecy about her email. Her party has been the main opposition to the ISI since her dad founded it. But probably the biggest indication of a plot to kill her would be the the bombing of her last rally in Karachi, which she claimed her security detail could have prevented if all the street lights weren’t mysteriously turned off right before the attack. 136 people dead, no investigation, and all the forensic evidence lost after the police brought in firehoses to wash away the crime scene. You can’t tell me that Al Qaeda has the power to influence police to destroy evidence, abandon their posts, turn off the streetlights, and block an independent investigation. And it appears that Bhutto even knew who in the government was behind the bombing. In her letter to Musharraf, in which Bhutto was careful not to implicate Musharraf personally, she accused three senior officials in his regime for financing and organizing the attacks. One of these guys was Ijaz Shah, Director General of the Intelligence Bureau. You might remember Ijaz Shah from a Nicholas Kristof column where he threatened to have a Pakistani rape victim killed if she wouldn’t shut up. (”We can do anything. … We can just pay a little money to some black guys in New York and get people killed there.”)

Previous assassination attempt in Karachi.

In the 1990’s Ijaz Shah was also the handler for Omar Saeed Sheikh, 9/11 paymaster and alleged murderer of Daniel Pearl. They were so close in fact that after Pearl’s murder, Sheikh turned himself into Shah, and stayed with him for one week before being handed over to the police for his trial. The fact that Bhutto named Ijaz Shah as one of her suspects in the Karachi bombing might indicate that he gave the order for yesterday’s assassination. Maybe not. It’s important to note that in her letter, Bhutto also named another politician and Hamid Gul, a former ISI Chief, who has recently been marching against Musharraf (and, most likely, on behalf of Nawaz Sharif). This would back up what the Times said about it being unlikely that Musharraf actually gave the order. However, there’s enough entrenched interests in the military regime and its Directorate for Inter-Service Intelligence willing to kill civilians in order to stop a power-sharing agreement, even without the consent of the General.

So did he give the order? Most likely not. Did he do anything to stop it? Well, her email implies that she was stopped from taking her own cars, getting her own security, using tinted windows, or even using jammers to disrupt bombs. Whether this means she wasn’t allowed to get her own jammers, or they just weren’t provided for her, is uncertain. More importantly, did Musharraf have a reason to let it happen? Yes. Don’t forget he owes the success of his coup to the ISI, and his power to the unquestioned authority of the Pakistani army - something Bhutto would undoubtedly be challenging if she were to win. And after the military puts the riots down, which they will, you could say it’s pretty much win-win for the regime. After all, what could be better for securing Pakistan’s military aid than a friendly reminder to the Americans about the threat Al Qaeda still poses, and Pakistan’s vital role in the war against terrorism. Just look at the coverage on CNN. With a nuclear arsenal at stake, nobody’s going to really care about where all the billions went or an independent investigation or even democracy. Americans are going to look to Pakistan and say, well at least there’s order. Now let’s help them beat Al Qaeda. At least, that’s what the General is counting on.

Back to how she was killed though (CNN’s preferred issue). “We provided excellent security to Ms. Bhutto, but our expert advice was ignored by her,” the Ministry spokesman said. This whole business of whether Bhutto “unfortunately” killed herself, recalls something Musharraf said about Daniel Pearl, who himself was investigating links between the ISI and terrorist groups. “Perhaps Daniel Pearl was over-intrusive. A mediaperson should be aware of the dangers of getting into dangerous areas. Unfortunately, he got over-involved … He got caught up in intelligence games.” Just goes to show you, whenever anyone in this government says the word “unfortunately,” they’re saying it with their tongue in cheek.

Brigadier Javed Cheema licks his lips for the 20th time. This is what poker players call a tell. Or a Ministry Spokesman with severely chapped lips.

In keeping with recent tradition, the New York Times is finally uncovering things the CIA was doing two years ago (destroying evidence). And our National Intelligence Estimate is just now telling us things Iran stopped doing five years ago (making nukes). But as our President displayed after the Intelligence Estimate was released, facts matter little compared to the context you put them in. “I have said Iran is dangerous,” Bush declared, “and the NIE estimate doesn’t do anything to change my opinion about the danger Iran poses to the world - quite the contrary.” Great.

But the New York Times shouldn’t start patting themselves on the back just yet. They too are guilty of Bush-style logic, jumping to the easiest, most convenient explanation as to why the two Interrogation tapes were destroyed. Notice their attempt to put the headline “9/11 Panel Study Finds that CIA Withheld Tapes” into context.

While informative, this info-graphic bears little relation to the far more pressing information in the article it ran next to, except if you assume the interrogation tapes were destroyed because the two Al-Qaeda operatives were waterboarded. The thing is, the 9/11 Panel didn’t ask for the videotapes of the interrogations, only the information that was extracted from them. So if it was the information on the tapes that the CIA was withholding, and nobody cared how they got it, why are we all assuming they were destroyed in 2005 because of a little waterboarding? Doesn’t the fact that the CIA was hiding them prove there might be something on the tapes a little more dangerous than a guy getting water poured on him?

According to the memo from Philip Zelikow, the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, the Panel first requested the CIA’s operational cables and internal documents relating to the interrogations. The CIA refused. Then they tried coming up with a list of questions about what the detainees said. Twice the CIA delivered responses that either didn’t satisfy the questions or were deemed insufficient. Then eventually the panel just gave up. The memo basically lays out those three attempts to find out the content of the tapes, and it proves the CIA was determined to keep even a summary of the tapes secret. Then for years the CIA denied even having them. Sure sounds like there was little more than waterboarding going on, yet that point gets lost in the New York Times article. The most important paragraph of the Zelikow memo didn’t even get mentioned by the writer, Mark Manzetti.

“Late in its investigation, reacting to press allegations that Abu Zubaydah had referred to a Saudi prince in his interrogations, the Commission asked “what information does the CIA have” about whether such assertions were made in Zubaydah’s interrogations. (CIA Question for the Record No. 3, dated May 20, 2004). We knew the CIA believed this was untrue but we asked the question formally to get any relevant information for the record. We cannot find a record of a CIA response. ” - Page 6 of the Zelikow Memo

Philip Zelikow, a former deputy to Condoleezza Rice, makes a vast understatement when he refers to the press allegations surrounding “a Saudi prince.” In fact, Zubayda named four Saudi Princes, at least one of whom was flown out by the Administration in the week after 9/11. At least someone thought there was something to the assertion, because that prince and two others Zubayda named all died in the same week after their names were leaked abroad. Zubayda also attempted to hang himself after making the confession. This story is explained in more detail in an earlier post on this blog and by the journalist who uncovered the story.

I urge everyone to read that link, because unlike me, Gerald Posner has actually talked to sources in the White House and the CIA. I realize that Posner may come off pompous, but his information has been confirmed by at least one other journalist, James Risen, who verified the story with his own sources. Also note that Possner is famous for being a debunker of conspiracy theories, not an advocate of them; and that the CIA never gave any evidence to the 9/11 Commission to disprove Possner’s claims. Now I’m not suggesting everything Zubayda confessed to was true. I have no doubt Zubayda was tortured, and torture tends to produce lots of false leads, which in turn lead to false terror alerts. This is probably why our Administration is such a fan. However, placing these tapes’ destruction in the context of the waterboarding debate obscures the more pressing issue: that these tapes were withheld and destroyed because of their content. And if the content of that tape can produce three dead Saudi princes in one week, there’s probably something to it.

What’s going to be very interesting to see is what the former Head of the National Clandestine Service who gave the order for the tape destruction, Jose Rodriguez, says when he goes before Congress on January 15. There’s been numerous reports proving he consulted CIA and White House lawyers (including Alberto Gonzalez and Chief of Staff David Addington) before destroying the evidence. But requesting immunity was probably a good move on his part, considering he’s been burned twice before by the CIA - once during the Iran-Contra affair, and then again in 1997 when he was demoted for trying to protect his friend from prosecution in the Dominican Republic. Who knows who’s going to go to jail if Rodriguez refuses to be the fall guy this time around.

I don’t want to scare anyone, but I probably won’t since I’m totally unqualified to discuss the things I’m about to discuss. My uncle died a few years ago after battling brain cancer. His tumor was in the part of his head closest to where he held his cell phone. Obviously there are a lot of people who have held cell phones to their brains and haven’t had any problems.

But no one has held a cell phone to their brain for more than about a decade. People also spend more time on their cell phones than they used to. There’s simply no way of knowing what decade upon decade of cell phone use will do to a brain. It’s undeniable that many of the photons emitted by a cell phone collide with the matter that makes up our brain and unlike say FM radio, the transmitter is RIGHT THERE (so there are way more photons). I think it’s undeniable that this physical interaction has some effect, whether it be neutral, negative, or positive (seems pretty unlikely).

But brain cancer; so what. We’re gonna die anyway, and I personally am curious as to what a brain altering disease would feel like. But…where do you keep your cell phone for most of its life? The transmission power is higher when you’re talking, but your cell phone is always communicating (via photon) with the towers. And when it gets harder to communicate with the towers (maybe because you went underground), your cell phone will drain more battery power in order to send more photons in order to have a better chance of maintaining communication with the towers.

I keep my cell phone in my pocket, which is pretty close to my balls. If I sit the right way and my pants are amenable, my phone is actually on my nutz. Who has ever done a study on the Multiple Decade Effects of Cell Phones on Nutz? Also, raise your hand if you use WiFi with a laptop in your lap (aside from the electromagnetic dangers I propose, someone more qualified proposes that the heat generated by laptops is dangerous for men).

All I’m saying is this: I won’t be surprised if health issues start cropping up in the generation of people-who-carry-electromagnetic-transmitters-with-them-everywhere-they-go.

Also, props to Plex for figuring out how to post a YouTube video.

Starting in December of 1999, Princess Haifa bint-Faisal, the wife of Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, started sending monthly checks between $2,000 and $3,500 to the wife of Osama Basnan, a Saudi student living in San Diego. In turn, Basnan’s wife signed most of those checks over to the wife of Omar al-Bayoumi, a known associate and “advance man” for two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdar. Newsweek has suggested that as much as $73,000 was passed in this manner from Prince Bandar’s wife to Omar al-Bayoumi. The 9/11 Comission claims these money transfers were unintentional, or irrelevant; that the source of the hijackers’ finances is unknown or unimportant. The truth is this: the 9/11 attacks were state-sponsored, not by our enemies, but by our closest allies.

Prince Bandar bin-Sultan, Saudi Ambassador to the United States (1983-2005)

One law-enforcement source told Newsweek that Osama Basnan, “celebrated the heroes of September 11th” at a party after the attacks and openly talked about “what a wonderful, glorious day it had been.” Less than 8 months after 9/11, Basnan came to Houston at the exact time the Saudi Crown Prince’s entourage was passing through en route to George W. Bush’s ranch and “according to informed sources, met with a high Saudi prince who has responsibilities for intelligence matters and is known to bring suitcases full of cash into the United States.” The payments to Basnan’s wife were all made through Princess Haifa’s account at Washington DC’s Riggs Bank, which the Wall Street Journal has since exposed for both turning a blind eye to Saudi embassy transactions and for its longstanding ties to covert CIA operations. Prince Bandar’s account, in particular, has been at the center of some of the most notorious arms deals of the past 25 years (The Contras received $32 million from Bandar’s account as part of the Iran-Contra affair; British arms contractor BAE systems funneled $2 billion into Bandar’s account for brokering an $80 billion weapons deal between the UK and Saudi Arabia; Bandar’s role in funding the Afghan Mujahdeen is also well documented).

Nawaf Alhamzi and Khalid Almihdar, 9/11 Hijackers

Two months after the checks started coming from Bandar’s wife, Alhazmi and Almihdar (Al-Qaeda veterans, according to George Tenet) arrive in Los Angeles, despite the fact that they have both been watchlisted since 1997. They are picked up at the airport by Omar al-Bayoumi, who takes them out to a restaurant and invites them to join him in San Diego. Bayoumi finds them a place to live at the Parkwoods Apartment complex (home to Mr. and Mrs. Osama Basnan) directly across the street from his own apartment. Bayoumi not only cosigns Alhazmi and Almihdar’s lease, he also pays their first month’s rent and security deposit ($1,500) and throws them a welcoming party to introduce them to the Muslim community. Bayoumi directs an acquaintance, Modhar Abdullah, to serve as their translator, and equip them with driver’s licenses, social security cards, and information on flight schools. Bayoumi would throw a similar party for Hani Hanjour, the 9/11 hijacker alleged to have piloted Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

Omar al-Bayoumi, employee for the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Who is Omar al-Bayoumi? According to Newsweek, his acquaintances have always suspected him of being a Saudi spy. Says one witness, “He was always watching [young Saudi college students], always checking up on them, literally following them around and then apparently reporting their activities back to Saudi Arabia.” From 1995 to 2002, he is paid $3,000 a month by the Saudi Civil and Aviation Authority, despite the fact that he’s living in the US and doing no actual work. The New York Times reported, based on leaks from the still-classified section of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, that Bayoumi’s salary significantly increases after the arrival of Alhazmi and Almihdar. The FBI testified to the same Congressional Inquiry that “despite being a student, al-Bayoumi had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia.” Another source told the FBI that Bayoumi had brought $500,000 to San Diego on behalf of some unknown Saudi benefactor, for the building of a new Kurdish mosque. The money was only offered on the condition that Bayoumi could be the building manager.

This means that by the time the two hijackers arrived, Bayoumi was holding two jobs at once, and owed both to his connections in the Saudi government. “One of the FBI’s best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence offer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power.” According to a new book by Sen. Bob Graham, one of the co-chairs of the 9/11 Congressional Inquiry, Graham uncovered a classified CIA memo about Almihdar and Alhazmi concluding that there is “incontrovertible evidence that there is support for these terrorists from within the Saudi government.” Graham has since accused the Bush Administration of covering up the Saudi money trail, along with their own incompetence in preventing the attack. The lead 9/11 hijacker, Mohammad Atta, would visit Alhazmi, Almihdar, and Bayoumi in San Diego later that summer.

Mohammad Atta also left a money trail leading to a foreign power. In August 2001, Atta’s Florida bank account received more than $100,000 from some unknown “paymaster” in Dubai. In the days before 9/11, $26,315 was wired from the hijackers’ accounts back to the UAE – presumably money leftover from the plot. On September 11, in the hours before the attacks, the paymaster transferred $40,871 from his UAE bank accounts to his Visa card, and caught a plane flight from Dubai to Pakistan.

Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, 9/11 Paymaster and ISI Asset

By October 2001, the paymaster was identified by CNN, Frontline and the Guardian as Omar Saeed Sheikh, the British national of Pakistani origin who was released from an Indian prison after a plane hijacking in 1999. According to Newsweek, after being escorted back to Pakistan by an ISI colonel, Saeed “lived openly—and opulently—in a wealthy Lahore neighborhood. US sources say he did little to hide his connections to terrorist organizations, and even attended swanky parties attended by senior Pakistani government officials.” The US government inferred that he was a “protected asset” of the ISI, Pakistan’s Intelligence Service. Vanity Fair reported that even his house was given to him by the ISI.

Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, ISI Director (1999-2001)

The day after CNN confirmed Saeed Sheikh as the paymaster, General Musharraf was compelled to distance himself from the “protected asset.” On October 6, Musharraf fired the man most responsible for the success of his coup, Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed, Director of ISI. Over the next two days some newspapers, mostly in India, but also in Pakistan, stated that Ahmed was fired for financing the 9/11 attacks. A Pakistani newspaper published an article on October 9, 2001, saying “Lt. Gen. Mahmud Ahmed has been replaced after the FBI investigators established credible links between him and Umar Sheikh, one of the three militants released in exchange for passengers of the hijacked Indian Airlines plane in 1999… Informed sources said there were enough indications with the US intelligence agencies that it was at Gen. Mahmood’s instruction that Sheikh had transferred 100,000 US dollars into the account of Mohammed Atta…” The Wall Street Journal picked up the story the next day, in a short piece titled “Our friends the Pakistanis.”

Wall Street Journal article

The Times of India reported that, “Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday, that the general lost his job because of the evidence India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Centre. The US authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by Ahmad Umar [Saeed] Sheikh at the instance of Gen Mahmud. Senior government sources have confirmed that India contributed significantly to establishing the link between the money transfer and the role played by the dismissed ISI chief. While they did not provide details, they said that Indian inputs, including Sheikh’s mobile phone number, helped the FBI in tracing and establishing the link.”

Meanwhile, after receiving an ultimatum from Richard Armitage, Musharraf had joined the War On Terror. But for some reason, finding Saeed Sheikh was not on the agenda, neither for Pakistan or the United States. Vanity Fair and the Pittsburgh Tribune claim that Saeed Sheikh and his Indian gangster friend, Aftab Ansari, participated in three more terrorist attacks on India or India-controlled Kashmir from October, 2001 through January, 2002. Only after being implicated in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl (who himself was working on a series connecting the ISI to terrorist groups), was the ISI pressured to hand Saeed over to the police.

Yet, as Newsweek put it, he remained, “confident, even cocky.” He told his interrogators that he was “sure” he wouldn’t be extradited to the US and said he wouldn’t serve more than “three or four years” in a Pakistan prison. In reality, Musharraf had no intention of giving Saeed a light sentence or extraditing him to the United States. The US Ambassador to Pakistan reported that Musharraf privately said, “I’d rather hang him myself” than extradite him. Saeed Sheikh would be tried for the murder of Daniel Pearl starting in April, 2002.

Daniel Pearl, South Asia Bureau Chief for the Wall Street Journal

Right before the Pearl trial, the Pittsburgh Tribune noted that “there are many in Musharraf’s government who believe that Saeed Sheikh’s power comes not from the ISI, but from his connections with our own CIA. The theory is that … he was bought and paid for.” General Musharraf has since claimed, in his widely ridiculed book In the Line of Fire, that Saeed Sheikh was recruited by British Intelligence in the early 90’s to fight for Islamic causes in Bosnia, “but then at some point he probably became a rogue or a double agent.” Two British newspapers reported that in 1999, British intelligence secretly offered Saeed an amnesty and the ability to “live in London a free man” if he would reveal his links to al-Qaeda. Whether or not he did is unknown, however, the fact that he visited his parents in England once in 2000 and again in 2001 - when he was put in Indian prison for the kidnapping of three British citizens - suggests he did receive some kind of deal. By all accounts, Omar Saeed Sheikh was a man of many faces, who may very well have had concurrent working relationships with Al-Qaeda, British, American, and Pakistani Intelligence. In the wake of the American journalist’s beheading in Karachi, it was the latter that concerned Musharraf the most.

On April 5, 2002 in an article titled, “A Certain Outcome for Pearl Trial: Death Sentences Expected, Despite Lack of Evidence,” NBC reported, “Some in Pakistan’s government also are very concerned about what Saeed might say in court. His organization and other militant groups here have ties to Pakistan’s secret intelligence agency [the ISI]. There are concerns he could try to implicate that government agency in the Pearl case, or other questionable dealings that could be at the very least embarrassing, or worse.” Even Donald Rumsfeld admitted that Saeed may have been an “asset” for the ISI (a fact that Colin Powell, Prince Bandar’s neighbor, contradicted one week later). If nothing else, the trial proved Pakistan’s determination to keep Saeed quiet, and no American or British official seemed to object (save MP Michael Meacher, bless his heart).

Omar Saeed Sheikh being escorted to trial.

The trial was decided by a secret “anti-terrorism” court held in a bunker underneath a prison. No reporters were allowed to attend. The venue had to change three times because of bomb threats and security concerns. The trial judge also changed three times. Forensic scientists initially refused to attend the exhumation of the court for fear they would be murdered. Saeed himself threatened the judge: “I will see whether who wants to kill me will kill me first, or get himself killed.” The key witness was a taxi driver, who turned out to be a head constable policeman in disguise. And before Saeed could be interrogated or interviewed by American authorities, he was sentenced to death. Immediately after the trial, the Pakistani government announced new suspects and new evidence that contradicted the verdict. Lt. Gen Mahmud Ahmed is now a successful businessman in Pakistan. Saeed Sheikh is still appealing his death sentence.

The evidence that powerful elements in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia had foreknowledge of the attacks and were even financing the hijackers is further corroborated by the confession of Abu Zubaida, a leading Al-Qaeda member the FBI captured in Pakistan in March of 2002. According to independent anonymous sources in the CIA and the White House (as told to investigative journalists Gerald Posner and James Risen), Abu Zubaida was tricked by his interrogators into thinking he had been turned over to the Saudi government. Considering the Mukhabarat’s reputation, this should have scared Zubaida.

Abu Zubaida, High-Value detainee currently in custody at Guantanamo Bay.

Instead, he expressed great relief and, under the influence of sodium pentathol, told his interrogators to call Prince Ahmed bin Salman (one of the Saudis flown out of the US during the White House authorized airlift – a scheme organized by Prince Bandar). Zubaida provided Prince Salman’s phone number from memory and told his captors that “he would tell them what to do.” Zubaida then proceeded rattling off many other phone numbers to high ranking officials in the Saudi and Pakistani government. He claimed that along with Prince Ahmed bin Salman, three other Saudi Princes (Turki al-Faisal, Fahd bin-Turki, and Sultan bin-Faisal) and a Pakistani Air Chief (Mushaf Ali Mir) all knew about the attacks. When Zubaida found out he had been duped and was not actually in Saudi Arabia, he attempted to strangle himself to death.

Pakistani Air Marshall Mushaf Ali Mir and Prince Ahmed bin Salman, both deceased.

After the CIA leaked this information to Riyadh and Islamabad, three of the four Saudi princes all died in the course of one week. Prince Ahmed bin Salman died of a heart attack at age 43. Prince Sultan bin Faisal died in a car crash on his way to Salman’s funeral. And Prince Fahd bin-Turki died of thirst in the Arabian desert. The Pakistani Air Chief died in a plane crash in clear weather with his entire family and all his closest confidants. The only person to survive Zubaida’s confession was Prince Turki al-Faisal, Saudi Intelligence Minister for more than 20 years, until he became an international diplomat (with international immunity) one week before September 11th. Faisal then served as Ambassador to the UK for almost three years until he replaced Prince Bandar as Ambassador to the United States in 2005. Many were surprised when he resigned suddenly in 2006. According to Seymour Hersch, insiders say Faisal quit after he found out the former Ambassador, Prince Bandar, had been making secret deals with his fellow Iran-Contra alumni - Vice President Dick Cheney, Ambassador to the UN (and, formerly, Iraq and Afghanistan) Zalmay Khalilzad, and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliot Abrams - behind Prince Turki al-Faisal’s back. The meetings resulted in the White House’s new “Redirection” policy to curb Iranian influence in the Middle East by supporting Sunni Jihadist groups in places like Lebanon.

Prince Turki Al-Faisal, Saudi Intelligence Minister (1977-2001), Ambassador to UK (2003-2005), Ambassador to the US (2005-2006)

As 2007 comes to a close, there is no denying that Pakistan and the ruling family of Saudi Arabia have been greatly rewarded by America’s War on Terror. Since 2001, the Pakistani army has collected more than $11 billion from the United States and the House of Saud continues to enjoys a secure position with the American army across the border and a brand new weapons technology package. Now the question remains: Why would Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, two of America’s greatest allies from the late Cold War, get involved in the biggest attack on American soil unless they knew they would be rewarded and not punished? Even being remotely (abstractly, one could say) connected to the 9/11 attacks has left Afghanistan and Iraq in ruins. How could Pakistan and Saudi Arabia be sure they wouldn’t meet the same fate?