Saturday, May 29, 2010

The OKBOMB and the TiNRATs, Part 4

(Prior to reading this, you may wish to review Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.)

I find several things interesting about the Oklahoma City Bombing of April, 1995.

Bill Clinton's first response was that he hoped there would be no Middle East connection. It was better for his domestic politics if he could blame the bombing on right-wing terrorists, and try to spin that in the direction of his critics (as if Rush Limbaugh were a terrorist). Then, despite the fact that the bombing was remarkably similar to the World Trade Center bombing of 1993, and indeed, even similar to the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut ten years before that, the government investigation found no Middle East connection.

However, Jayna Davis, a local Oklahoma City investigative reporter, found extensive connections to the Middle East, and documented those connections exceedingly well in a book that she published - after, of course, she had presented her information to law enforcement and been turned away (several times) (link link link link link).

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher also had his office do an investigation, and his people came up with many of the same connections that Jayna Davis had come up with.

Terry Nichols had had an opportunity to meet with an Islamic terrorist bombmaker in the Philippines; there were ties to Al Qaeda and to Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

But the federal prosecution did not pursue this.



The inability of the defense to depose witnesses allowed the FBI to go back to key defense witnesses and intimidate them by asking for polygraph tests and telling them "you did not see what you claimed to have seen." The defense was also prejudiced because there was a massive overwhelming sense of collective judgment that the Defendant was guilty, and that was it. The trial would be simply to rubber stamp of the validity of the arrest and public relations campaign in the press that our client is guilty. Government agencies, and others, simply refused to consider the possibility of innocence, or that others might be involved, even a foreign connection. One wonders how many American have to die in the World Trade Center, over Lockerbie, in a military barracks in Saudi Arabia, or off Long Island to realize that there is nothing remote, fanciful or inconsistent about the same foreign hands (or others) being involved in the bombing of the Murrah Building.

Wow! The FBI involved, not in bringing all the bad guys to justice, but in obstruction of justice?

The government does not produce truly exculpatory evidence because it does not believe it exists. Or, if it exists, it is not credible (or so they claim). Either the Defendant has established that the material he seeks from the national intelligence agencies is exculpatory or he has not. If he has, then he needs a court order to pry it out, or at least, if that does not work, there will not be any dispute later as to what should have been done. The district court relied on good faith professed on the part of the prosecution, but the defense does not see any compelling need to rely upon the good faith of the Deputy General Counsel of the DOD, William Sheehan and his counterparts throughout the federal bureaucracy, because he does not have any. See D.E. 1923 (Exhibit "CC").

In fact, Mr. Sheehan's knowledge of his legal obligations under the Constitution is so wrong it is breathtaking in its audacity: The Department of Defense is not a party to this suit and is not bound by the Court's order. The last time the defense looked at the Indictment it was captioned "United States of America" versus Tim McVeigh, not 'The Department of Justice" versus Tim McVeigh. This district court's order of April 29, 1996 (D.E. 1310) directed a response from the government as a whole. To paraphrase a currently politically correct statement used in another context: the government agencies just don't get it.

Maybe somebody just didn't want to get it.

And, we have been letting the government get away with breaking the law for decades.

The US federal government is radical and out-of-control.

But, why? Why would the FBI obstruct justice instead of bring the bad guys in?

From Oklahoma City Bombing Witness Fears for Life; Sues Government, dated May 19, 1997:


In his lawsuit, filed last January, [Cary James] Gagan asserts that he told the FBI in September 1994 that he had information on a plot to blow up a federal building, but that the FBI ignored his information.

The Denver Rocky Mountain News reported on August 11, 1995 that Jones said his team was contacted by a former FBI informant and told of the facts that Gagan provided to the bureau, specifically that a mid-West federal building was going to be bombed in April 1995 that the conspirators were Arabs, Latin Americans and Americans and that he was recruited to carry a detonator in a truck by these people.

Gagan claims that the FBI is covering up the bombing because highly-placed government officials and others are linked to the drug operation for which he worked.

Well, Gagan's lawsuit was dismissed as frivolous, and the dismissal was upheld on appeal (link link link link). And, is that surprising? Sometimes an informant is a criminal who is selling out his criminal buddies - not the most reliable of sources. Is it possible Mr. Gagan is unreliable, and that his lawsuit was indeed frivolous?

But, is it really so far out of the realm of possibility that Mr. Gagan might be right? Highly-placed government officials were corrupt, linked to the drug operation for which Gagan worked - and, a thorough investigation of the bombing would lead to the drugs and to highly-placed officials who are on the payroll of organized crime.

So, the President, for domestic political purposes, wanted to limit the investigation to keep the Middle East out of it - stung by defeats of Democrats in the 1994 elections and looking forward to his 1996 re-election campaign, he knew that foreign affairs were not his strong point, but if he could channel the investigation against America's right wing, that might give him the leverage he needed. The bureaucracy went along with it, because too many of them were on the payroll of the organized crime entities that would have been exposed.

From Illicit Political Finance and State Capture (pg 6-7), by David Kupferschmidt of International IDEA, dated August 21, 2009 (emphasis in original):

State capture aims at systematically distorting or displacing the state through a clandestine parallel entity or entities,10 and may be classified as the most pernicious manifestation of political corruption. Although a better definition of the term is needed, its essence is 'shaping the formation of the basic rules of the game (i.e. laws, rules, decrees and regulations) through illicit and non-transparent private payments to public officials'.11 It refers to a strategy by powerful actors to weaken, co-opt, disable or privatize governmental agencies, territory, and the state itself. Some commentators maintain that it is in the interest of clandestine groups and organized crime for the state to be functional,12 if only for the sake of greater profit. Such a relationship may be parasitical, particularly in more developed economies. In less-developed countries with weaker, vulnerable governments, the relationship with the host body may resemble malignant cancer. State capture is to be distinguished from petty corruption; it is manifested as meta-corruption, or grand corruption, in which illicit political finance is used to systematically control public institutions.

Grand corruption - dirty money which "is used to systematically control public institutions" - such as the Department of State, the Department of Justice....

Is this not what the Sibel Edmonds case is about?

From 'The Stakes Are Too High for Us to Stop Fighting Now' An interview with FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds by Christopher Deliso, August 15, 2005:

SE: The fact that there are no investigations -- I will give you an analogy, okay? Say if we decided to have a "war on drugs," but said in the beginning, "right, we're only going to go after the young black guys on the street level." Hey, we already have tens of thousands of them in our jails anyway, why not a few more? But we decided never to go after the middle levels, let alone the top levels...

It's like this with the so-called war on terror. We go for the Attas and Hamdis -- but never touch the guys on the top.

CD: You think they [the government] know who they are, the top guys, and where?

SE: Oh yeah, they know.

CD: So why don't they get them?

SE: It's like I told you before -- this would upset "certain foreign relations." But it would also expose certain of our elected officials, who have significant connections with high-level drugs- and weapons-smuggling -- and thus with the criminal underground, even with the terrorists themselves.

The money trail starts from drug- and weapons-smugglers; it leads in one direction to corrupt government officials, and in the other direction it leads to terrorists. Does that sound like what Mr. Gagan was alleging?

From Cracking the Case: An Interview With Sibel Edmonds by Scott Horton, August 22, 2005:

SH: Well, if it's an overt act to benefit an American enemy then yes, that's treason.

SE: Correct, and I as I said, those lines are so blurry because there are certain countries that we call allies but I wouldn't call them allies, these people are, these countries are, quasi-allies.

SH: Okay, I'm going to go ahead and name some people whom I suspect inside the State Department and the Pentagon, and I suppose you won't be able to answer affirmative or negative on any of these, but I'm very curious when I read about this kind of corruption going on in the State Department, I immediately think of John Bolton and David Wurmser. Do those names mean anything to you?

SE: Well, first of all, I'm not going to answer that question at all, but also you should pay attention to the fact that some of these people have been there for a while, and some of these people had their roots in there even in the mid-1990s.

SH: So more career officials rather than political appointees.

SE: Or maybe a mixture of both.

The mid-1990's - that's about the time all this obstruction of justice with the Oklahoma City Bombing was going on.

From An Interview with Sibel Edmonds, Page Three by Chris Deliso, July 1, 2004:

CD: If your full testimony is heard by the public, who or what agencies are going to be in the biggest trouble?

SE: Well, as for agencies I guess the DOJ, FBI, State Department. But in a way these agencies get some kind of immunity when you charge them like this ... I hate to see how a lot of agents get stigmatized in this. Most of the field agents I met in the FBI were good, honest and hardworking individuals. They were trying to do their best, but up against this ingrown bureaucracy – this is where you have the problem, as well as with certain elected officials.

CD: What are they so afraid of?

SE: They're afraid of information, of the truth coming out, and accountability -- the whole accountability issue that will arise. But it's not as complicated as it might seem. If they were to allow the whole picture to emerge, it would just boil down to a whole lot of money and illegal activities.

CD: Hmm, well I know you can't name names, but can you tell me if any specific officials will suffer if your testimony comes out?

SE: Yes. Certain elected officials will stand trial and go to prison.

There's a good reason for Bill Clinton (and others in Washington) to not want a Middle East connection to this bombing.

And, there's a good reason to torture and murder Sergeant Terrance Yeakey of the Oklahoma City Police Department.

More to follow....

No comments:

Post a Comment