Outstanding article. One minor correction regarding: "However, the '28 pages' that had been left out of the 9/11 Commission Report..."

The 28 pages were not from the 9/11 Commission report, but rather from the earlier report of a joint congressional intelligence inquiry into 9/11. https://28pages.org/faq/

Expand full comment

The link to the FBI documents released regarding the FBI and Awlaki. http://www.scribd.com/doc/118853482/FBI-Files.

It seems Fox was the only news site reporting. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/01/04/fbi-refutes-claims-it-suspected-al-awlaki-role-in-purchasing-11-hijackers/?test=latestnews

***in the docs themselves, page 49 for the credit card and plane tixx of the 3 hijackers Atta, Suqami, and al-Sheri. Note the date of the report was 9/27/01. In my opinion at this point, Awlaki could have been arrested. Frankly, we have held some at GTMO for a decade on lesser charges. Yet he was released.

**I'd also note page 152 of the FBI docs that mentions that Awlaki was detained at JFK airport in Oct 02 for passport fraud and then released. FoxNews reported this, as well. I went very into the weeds on this. Long story short, there's no sound reason the warrant should have been pulled. It was solid.

***then this reporting that Awlaki dined at the Pentagon in Feb 02 which is frankly just plain weird knowing that at the very same time the FBI was allegedly trying to figure out a way to arrest the guy. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/07/radical-muslim-clerics-pentagon-lunch-top-dod-lawyers-executive-director-cair/

***for more on Awlaki page 178 of the JICI. https://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2002_rpt/911rept.pdf.

Awlaki had contacts with al-Midhar, al-Hazmi, Hanjour, and Ramzi Bin-Alshibh.

And specifically to page 179 of the JICI, "The FBI closed its inquiry into the activities of the imam in March 2000, approximately 2 months after al-Hazmi and al-Midhar arrived in San Diego. In the case closing memorandum, the agent asserted that the imam had been 'fully identified and does not meet the criterion for further investigation.' The investigation was closed despite the imam's contacts with other subjects of counterterrorism investigations and reports concerning the imam's connection to suspect organizations." (Mentioning obviously the charities)

***for the 9/11 commission on Awlaki see pages 221, 229 and 519 footnote 33. Also note that Zelikow the former staff director commented that he felt they weren't able to fully investigate awlaki. Incidentally, the JICI says the same thing--"there's a lot of smoke there regarding awlaki"

***it's reported that page 49 of the judicial watch docs regarding the plane tickets was not given to the JICI or the 9/11 commission. There was a mandate for FBI to provide all material to both those investigative bodies, just fyi.

***regarding page 49 of docs(the possible plane tixx) the FBI is denying that the document speaks to any connection between awlaki and the hijackers. They claim that the document is being misinterpreted and that the redacted portion of the document explains why there is no connection.

***i should note that out of the 200 pages of the recently foia'd docs dumped by judicial watch, you can find facts that contradict the FBI's official timeline of the hijackers (found here in 3 parts: http://vault.fbi.gov/search?SearchableText=9%2F11+chronology).

***You also can discern that Awlaki and Atta might have traveled together on at least 2 occasions.

***Finally, you will discover that Awlaki actually had a flight from chicago to dulles on the morning of 9/11. His plane landed around 9am. Again, one would have thought that alone would have raised some flags.


Some questions:

Why was Awlaki not arrested and sent to GTMO? As I said above, we've held others for far less--particularly in the time-frame immediately after the 9/11 attacks. We rounded up everyone.

Why did the FBI fail to apply for any warrant ever on awlaki particularly when it is quite evident as early as 9/17/01 that Awlaki was making false statements to the FBI regarding his contacts and knowledge of the hijackers--Hamzi in particular.

Why was the FBI investigation of him closed in March 2000--at the precise time that Hamzi and alMidhar enter the country and meet Awlaki in San Diego? And when Awlaki was identified by FBI in March 2000 "what" was he identified as? A CI? An asset? If so, for whom?

When permitted to re-enter the US in October of 02, why did the FBI not question or at least detain Awlaki? He was apparently fairly available in the DC area since he showed up at the home of a known jihadist named Timimmi. Interestingly, Timmimi currently claims that Awlaki was wearing a wire and that he was trying to entrap him when he showed up at his residence in Oct 02.


Essentially, you've got a guy who was already being investigated by the FBI in 1999-2000 as being an al qaeda associate and also a consumer of prostitution.

Yet, in March 2000, FBI drops their investigation and Awlaki is "identified." Again, this investigation is dropped at the exact time that al-mihdhar and al hazmi arrive to san diego and meet Awlaki.

Also, recall that this information(that 2 known alqaeda who had just attended a terrorist summit in malaysia, were now inside the US) was admittedly and wrongfully withheld by the CIA from the FBI for nearly 18 months.

The USS Cole bombing occurs in Oct 2000. Awlaki has contacts with those involved with the Cole. Nothing happens.

Then Awlaki moves to Falls Church, Va. Soon after other hijackers(5 in total) relocate to Falls Church and it is discovered that Awlaki receives phone calls from Ramsi Binalshibh from the Hamburg cell--a well-known al Qaeda player.

It should be noted that as of August 15, 2001 Bin Alshibh has discussed the specific date and target of the attacks with Atta over the phone.

It was confirmed by the FBI yesterday that they had all the financials of the hijackers immediately (within hours) after the 9/11 attacks. From the foia'd docs you can see that they ran financials on Awlaki, as well. Once given access to the financials, it is impossible for the FBI to not see the connection between Awlaki and Hamzi--on both the east and west coasts. Yet nothing happens. They also would have discovered that Awlaki flew on the morning of 9/11.

And then finally a DOS warrant is applied for and granted in june 02 for passport fraud. The warrant is inexplicably pulled four months later in oct 02 exactly one day prior to Awlaki's return to the US. The FBI agent involved in the pulling of the warrant is Wade Ammerman--the same FBI agent who handles the Timimmi case. Its doubtful Ammerman would have had the juice to pull such a warrant. Someone else must have called the us atty in colorado. Who was this person?

Days thereafter, Awlaki departs the US and goes on to be one of the most celebrated jihadists for almost a decade. He has links to the underwear bomber, the times square bomber, the paintball terrorists(timmimi), and the ft hood shooter, just to name a few. Interestingly, all of these attempts but for ft hood are thwarted, the assailants are caught, and Awlaki continues to evade capture.

When you read DOJ memo's and charges against these guys it's almost laughable; they all come across as low-level incompetent wannabes.

For example, the underwear bomber decides he wants to participate in jihad. He flies to Yemen and randomly starts asking around if anyone knows Awlaki. Finally, he is approached and given Awlaki's phone number. Awlaki actually answers the phone(which is sort of unbelievable given the broad knowledge and understanding regarding the US's surveillance abilities--particularly inside of Yemen--yet Awlaki (the world's number 2 terrorist at the time is available by phone and text). Awlaki talks by phone and then tells the kid to put why he wants to kill Americans in writing and then send it to him via txt. The kid does it. And then Awlaki goes on to the congratulate him for his commitment to jihad, sets him up with a bombmaker and gives the only instruction that he detonate the bomb over US airspace on an American plane(convenient). Of course, the bomb fails to ignite, the kid gets caught. And I'll wager a bet that the txt message specifically describing why he wants to kill Americans was used against him by the prosecution. www.lawfareblog.com/2012/02/justice-department-memo-on-al-aulaqi-and-abdulmutallab/

Eventually in 2011, Awlaki gets sacked by an Obama drone. This drone strike is currently the topic of much debate surrounding the degree of secrecy of the evidence supporting said strike and the abuse of executive office in carrying out such an assasination of a US citizen and his 16 year old son.

I don't know, it all seems very strange to me.

Bottom line: I think Awlaki was a CI/asset. Run through either JSOC or a liaison service. I think that the evidence tends to implicate CIA as opposed to the FBI. For some reason, I don't think FBI was getting fed by this guy(well, at least not before 9/11), rather I think they were getting duped by him. CIA and their friends pre and post 9/11? In my opinion, that's probably a whole different story. But its a story that would at least explain why we had no terrorist attacks for the decade after 9/11--except obviously for FT hood. It might also explain why this guy was linked to virtually every terrorist attack attempt since 9/11.

Think about it--he runs an online jihad website. Gives speeches. Entices anyone who is interested. They reach out to him via email, txt, or telephone. He encourages them, has them put their desire in writing, provides equipment(that apparently always turns out to be defective), instructs that it has to be inside the US and then the jihadist is caught, the plot thwarted, and our intel guys look like heroes. Its also interesting to note that Bin laden never talked about Awlaki nor seemed to trust him.

Like I said, it all seems a bit weird--unless of course if he was an asset.

Expand full comment

He went back briefly to San Diego in August 2001 and reportedly told a neighbor “I don’t think you’ll be seeing me… Later on you’ll find out why.”

Sounds like he knew about what was to happen on 9/11.

Expand full comment

“According to an NPR report in 2010, in 2001 al-Awlaki appeared to be a moderate who could "bridge the gap between the United States and the worldwide community of Muslims."[62] The New York Times said at the time that he was "held up as a new generation of Muslim leader capable of merging East and West."

He did not seem to be radicalized when the call was made in 2001.

Expand full comment

Excellent reporting in general, I could go on about the things I like and appreciate. If I wasn't a student right now I'd donate.

But it misses one crucial thing. In its ire or effort to brand the CIA as a Terrorist-sponsoring organizaiton that plays with these extremists as pawns on a chessboard it misses the broader, more nuanced picture.

Everyone are trying to play everyone and up to a point al-Awlaki may have been a pawn or an ally or an asset of the CIA as much as he thought himself as using them to promote his position as a scholar.

But al-Awlaki turned away from the US in much the way that Bin-Laden turned away from his wealthy Saudi family and Saudi roots. Exposed to all the corruption, tired of being manipulated or seeing as he explains the destruction of an entire family except the mother in a mudhut in Afghanistan he saw perhaps no other way than becoming radicalized and fighting Western, especially American powers with violence. He turned against his former home.

Who is whose puppet? I think that the CIA at best (from their perspective) used him as long as they could and then droned him when he was of no use. Had they not funded him the organization known as Al-Qaeda may or may not have been weaker as someone else could have replaced him or he could have radicalized earlier.

In some sense this view is more cruel, more dark, more nihilistic than the view that the CIA is behind "everything". The same way that the idea that nobody is in control of suffering, chaos and bust and boom cycles caused by global financial capitalism rather than there being a group in control of it.

Everyone are trying to play everyone and but CIA is certainly using the islamists more than the islamists are using the CIA, that's at least has to be sevident by this and other such reporting.

Expand full comment

If you haven't already check out Mark Curtis book "Secret Affairs: Britain’s Collusion with Radical Islam", it has a chapter on the Balkans: http://markcurtis.info/2016/09/04/britains-collaboration-with-pro-jihadist-forces-in-kosovo/

Expand full comment