The NY Times describes an interesting footnote to the death of Osama, and does not vex its readership with nuance or history:
Prosecutors Are Expected to Seek Dismissal of Charges Against Bin Laden
It should happen with little or no fanfare, but it will still represent a moment that some thought might never occur: federal prosecutors in Manhattan are expected to file court papers this week that will formally ask a judge to dismiss all charges against Osama bin Laden.
The move should formally close a case against the leader of Al Qaeda that began in Federal District Court in Manhattan with an indictment on June 10, 1998, and expanded over the years with later versions, adding some two dozen defendants.
And how does the Times describe that indictment?
The first indictment against Bin Laden ran eight pages and charged him with conspiracy to attack United States defense installations.
...
The indictment detailed Al Qaeda’s history and Bin Laden’s role as its leader. It charged that his operatives had trained and assisted Somali tribesmen in an ambush in 1993 that killed 18 American soldiers in Mogadishu.
Later indictments charged a broad conspiracy that also included the bombings on Aug. 7, 1998, of two American Embassies in East Africa that killed 224 people and the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in 2000.
The original indictment, kept secret at first, came at a time when the C.I.A. was considering a plan to capture Bin Laden and turn him over for trial, either in the United States or in an Arab country, according to the 9/11 Commission Report. Those plans were not carried out, but the law enforcement investigation continued.
“There was no question from our perspective that at the time of the June 1998 indictment, the objective was to bring Bin Laden back for trial,” said Mary Jo White, the United States attorney in Manhattan at the time.
Well, now - every righty worth his (or her!) Rush Limbaugh bobble-head doll knows what the Times forgot to mention - the original indictment (this is the November 1998 version) included a passage describing a relationship between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein:
4. Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezballah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the Government of Iraq.
That allegation came from an al Qaeda defector and was dropped in a superceding indictment:
Patrick J. Fitzgerald, now a U.S. attorney in Illinois, who oversaw the African bombing case, told the commission that reference was dropped in a superceding indictment because investigators could not confirm al Qaeda's relationship with Iraq as they had done with its ties to Iran, Sudan and Hezbollah. The original material came from an al Qaeda defector who told prosecutors that what he had heard was secondhand.
Obviously, "Can't be proven" does not equal "Not true", but still - there is no mystery as to why the Times chose not to vex their readership with that bit of history. The 9/11 Commission eventually concluded that there had been contacts but no collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq.
Way OT, but I should have been a Spanish Air Traffic Controller. Average pay; $500,000 and some were making over $1,000,000 with retirement available at 52.
Now the IMF wants to loan Spain our borrowed money so they can continue paying their ATCs a half miillion bucks.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 04, 2011 at 01:11 PM
i really don't care what the hacks of the 911 commission ended up concluding. thomas joscelyn has an interesting piece in the weekly standard that wikileaks documents show material connections (direct conduits of supplies and information) between al qaeda and iraq based on multiple sources http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/433-jawad-jabber-sadkhan/documents/9 and http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/435-hassan-abdul-said so it could be said i guess that we have no confirmation that iraq helped plan 911, but we are pretty confident the two parties (the alleged religious and the secularists) were hanging out together.
Posted by: matt foley | May 04, 2011 at 01:19 PM
can we please see proof of death?
Posted by: matt | May 04, 2011 at 01:28 PM
Wow. It's like old times. You're quoting Fitzgerald and getting out-analyzed by Marcy Wheeler.
Posted by: Don | May 04, 2011 at 01:35 PM
The Times just isn't the same without Howie Raines.
Posted by: Gabriel Sutherland | May 04, 2011 at 01:35 PM
Smartpower!!
Posted by: bunky | May 04, 2011 at 01:43 PM
Halabja, the Persians.
===========
Posted by: History? What's that? The latest farce? | May 04, 2011 at 01:48 PM
If, a big if, the Insider is near the mark, why have Val and the O become so marginalized? Daley's not. And note the reference to deference to Joey B. and Gates.
================
Posted by: I guess we'll just see, now, won't we? | May 04, 2011 at 01:52 PM
Is this the same Patrick Fitzgerald who held up sentencing of Tony Rezko in expectation of his cooperation in various ongoing investigations which led pretty much nowhere?
Posted by: matt | May 04, 2011 at 01:52 PM
And who went after Conrad Black, using David Radler, who was at least as guilty, in the Hollinger Grp matter.
Posted by: narciso | May 04, 2011 at 01:55 PM
--can we please see proof of death?--
Obama decides not to release photos, h/t Hotair headlines.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 04, 2011 at 01:57 PM
Well, it's the same Fitzgerald who the ringmaster of this nutter circus and his peanut gallery spent months vilifying, indicted, but apparently now his indictments are evidence of truth. Go figure.
Posted by: Don | May 04, 2011 at 01:57 PM
Appearances can be deceiving, Don.
===============
Posted by: And so can be ye. | May 04, 2011 at 02:01 PM
Don seems to be having a bad day.
Posted by: Captain Hate | May 04, 2011 at 02:02 PM
May we please have the definitive overarching narrative on Patrick Fitzgerald from the wan Don?
================
Posted by: June bugs are louder. | May 04, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Don is still afflicted with failure to comprehend what is written, I see
Posted by: narciso | May 04, 2011 at 02:03 PM
--Well, it's the same Fitzgerald who the ringmaster of this nutter circus and his peanut gallery spent months vilifying, indicted, but apparently now his indictments are evidence of truth.--
Trying to figure out what "indicted" is doing in the middle of that sentence.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 04, 2011 at 02:03 PM
Wait for the Wikileaks on Wilson.
==========
Posted by: Everybody knows that the Plame is a Game. | May 04, 2011 at 02:04 PM
but apparently now his indictments are evidence of truth
No, simpleton: they're evidence of notice.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 04, 2011 at 02:11 PM
Unexpected:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 04, 2011 at 02:13 PM
Trying to figure out what "indicted" is doing in the middle of that sentence.
No kidding. Syntax much, Don?
Posted by: lyle | May 04, 2011 at 02:19 PM
--Obviously, "Can't be proven" does not equal "Not true", but still - there is no mystery as to why the Times chose not to vex their readership with that bit of history. The 9/11 Commission eventually concluded that there had been contacts but no collaboration between al Qaeda and Iraq.--
Cleo's favorite publisher, Assange, demonstrates there was more than just "contact" between Iraq and AQ.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 04, 2011 at 02:20 PM
Pelosi.
Wonder how many remember when she was pushing for prosecution of CIA interrogators for post 9-11 enhanced interrogation techniques?.....ie. doing their jobs.
Techniques that may well have made the difference on killing Osama.
What a first class piece of work that woman is.
Posted by: Army of Davids | May 04, 2011 at 02:31 PM
Obama announces photos of OBL to be released October 3, 2012 ....
Posted by: BB Key | May 04, 2011 at 02:31 PM
Politicians saying that THEY have seen the picture & OBL is definitely dead is NOT enough.
Posted by: Janet | May 04, 2011 at 02:33 PM
The US Special Forces only took two bodies with them in the military chopper; one is said to be Bin Laden’s and the other his son’s.
Posted by: Neo | May 04, 2011 at 02:39 PM
http://socyberty.com/issues/white-house-insider-obama-hesitated-panetta-issued-order-to-kill-osama-bin-laden/#ixzz1LOUbqDvi
" President Obama was literally pulled from a golf outing and escorted back to the White House to be informed of the mission."
Lol, from page 3.
Posted by: Steg | May 04, 2011 at 02:40 PM
Here's a video and story from Patterico about the scandal that at the very least should cost that corrupt nincompoop Holder his job.
Two dead federal agents due to the idiotic plan to make FFLs let known criminals buy guns and he pretends to know nothing about it and has done everything he can to stonewall congressional investigators.
Posted by: Ignatz | May 04, 2011 at 02:42 PM
I wish I could feel more comfortable with the things Insider reports. If what he says is true, those facts will surely become known when the next Bob Woodward book comes out, if not before.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 04, 2011 at 02:48 PM
Following up on Neo's 2:39 PM post, see LUN for a theory on why there may be one or more unaccounted for "dead" bodies (perhaps there were one or more "inside the compound" informants and they're not dead). The LUNed article also, to my mind, makes a convincing case that, at the very least, Pak governmental honchos knew what was happening and allowed time for it to happen.
Posted by: Thomas Collins | May 04, 2011 at 02:49 PM
I don't really buy Harnden's. For one thing, his last question is answered by the fact that we've spy photos of the house being built, from which we could figure out the layout. No need for an informant on that.
===========
Posted by: And I believe Seals could explore a three layer house with dispatch. | May 04, 2011 at 03:02 PM
At this point I am uncertain as to whether there was any firefight at all in the house or the compound. Anybody know?
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 04, 2011 at 03:15 PM
DoT- it seems the WH is unwilling to discuss the firefight at this point. They will not answer who was engaged in it.
Posted by: MayBee | May 04, 2011 at 03:26 PM
Well, Obama said on Sunday that there was one:
"After a firefight, they killed Osama bin Laden and took custody of his body," Obama said.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 04, 2011 at 03:30 PM
Times of India says they twice told CIA of their hunch UBL was in an urban area near Islamabad. Also this:
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 04, 2011 at 03:37 PM
He wouldn't know a firefight from a firefly.
There was apparently no firefight. Perhaps the seals just overpowered the security staff. Perhaps there was no security. Weve learned of Obama and son, kids, a couple of women and two couriers and their families. Not a word about bodyguards. Not one seal was apparently injured. Some firefight.
Posted by: clarice | May 04, 2011 at 03:38 PM
May have been covered elsewhere on JOM, but it seems it was not supposed to be revealed that it had been the SEALs, but Biden let the cat out of the bag. If so, I'm glad he did.
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 04, 2011 at 03:45 PM
Obama threw the firefight thing out there to cover for killing Osama. Then it was embellished to be Osama wielding a gun and hiding behind his wife. Now that didn't happen.
If there was a firefight, it wasn't enough to get Osama out of his bed to grab a gun and protect himself. It wasn't enough to disturb the neighbors. It wasn't enough to stop us from getting boatloads of computer equipment loaded up.
As if there is shame in our SEALS stealthily sneaking in, getting their guys, and getting out.
Posted by: MayBee | May 04, 2011 at 03:50 PM
But, what of Rufus T Firefly?
I love that Panetta shoved this down his throat to vindicate the Clinton mess. Do we care about Muslim sensitivity. I don't. The man was a terrorist. He has no special privilege against ridicule.
Posted by: MarkO | May 04, 2011 at 03:50 PM
I have no problem with the SEALs taking down an unarmed OBL. What I have a major problem with is the WH lying about the circumstances of the raid in order to cover that up.
Posted by: Porchlight | May 04, 2011 at 03:54 PM
Question for the next administration spokesman who discusses this event:
"Were any representations made to Pakistan officials about US withdrawal from Afghanistan in return for their forbearance on the raid?"
Posted by: Danube of Thought | May 04, 2011 at 04:01 PM
I think WoT has crippled al Qaeda. So many of them have died or been on the run. The proof is that bin Laden didn't have ten guys heavily armed 24/7 to defend him. He had zilch.
Thanks to Bush and all our guys and gals in the service. I think a little bird sat next to Obama's ear right after the inauguration and said, "Stay the hell out of the way of the WoT, you peacenik lefty dipshit."
Posted by: Jim Ryan | May 04, 2011 at 04:02 PM
When will we get the real TRUTH about how this killing of Osama really happened? My best guestimate, they entered ,found him on the 2nd floor and shot him dead. I believe Osama's daughter's account.
Posted by: maryrose | May 04, 2011 at 04:05 PM
"May we please have the definitive overarching narrative on Patrick Fitzgerald ....."
Ah, jeez. That sound you hear is the gods laughing because I just threw out a complete, two foot, stack of filings and rulings in the Libby, starting with Judy Miller. OTOH, it does free up more time for the shoveling.
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 04, 2011 at 04:09 PM
I think a little bird sat next to Obama's ear right after the inauguration and said, "Stay the hell out of the way of the WoT, you peacenik lefty dipshit."
I think that little bird flew in the form of a PDB. Hearing about the daily threats to himself and the US surely made him realize he was ill-equipped to handle it personally.
Posted by: MayBee | May 04, 2011 at 04:22 PM
MayBee:
"As if there is shame in our SEALS stealthily sneaking in, getting their guys, and getting out."
Does it get any more twisted than expecting anybody to believe that you'd send 2 helicopters of Seals into Osama's compound with orders not to shoot except in self-defense?
Posted by: JM Hanes | May 04, 2011 at 04:22 PM
It doesn't, JMH. Especially when the reason given for choosing SEALS was to get Proof of Death.
Posted by: MayBee | May 04, 2011 at 04:41 PM
Obama makes up stuff when he doesn't have to to add drama and an ends justifies the means narrative. We all know what the Seals mission was all about.Using the word Geronimo was another gaffe by this seat of the pants administration.
Posted by: maryrose | May 04, 2011 at 04:55 PM
"Were any representations made to Pakistan officials about US withdrawal from Afghanistan in return for their forbearance on the raid?"
Excellent question. Surely they got something of value for this bargaining chip.
Posted by: Extraneus | May 04, 2011 at 05:26 PM
The word is "superseding."
Posted by: twvolck | May 04, 2011 at 07:16 PM
al-Fadl testified to the grand jury that they cooperated on weapons. The Iraq al-Qeada weapons cooperation was cited as justification for the al-Shifa bombing.
Posted by: RichatUF | May 04, 2011 at 08:35 PM
Jackie Cooper has died at 88.
Posted by: Sara (Pal2Pal) | May 04, 2011 at 10:13 PM
Green Lantern;if he dies the world dies.Its O asking to be Presinet.
Posted by: domesticdrunkandbarmaid | May 05, 2011 at 10:51 AM