[ALBSA-Info] NYTimes.com Article: U.S. to Publish Terror Evidence on bin Laden

[jetkoti at hotmail.com]

This article from NYTimes.com 
has been sent to you by jetkoti at hotmail.com.



U.S. to Publish Terror Evidence on bin Laden

September 24, 2001 

By JANE PERLEZ and TIM WEINER


 

WASHINGTON, Sept. 23 — The Bush administration plans to
make public evidence linking Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda
network to the terror attacks on the United States in an
effort to persuade the world, and particularly Muslim
nations, that a military response is justified. 

The evidence will embrace new information gathered by law
enforcement and intelligence agents on the Sept. 11
attacks, as well as material used in indictments against
Mr. bin Laden in the bombing of American Embassies in East
Africa in 1998, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said
today. 

It may also cite leads developed in the investigation of
the bombing of the destroyer Cole in Yemen last October. 

The administration sees the evidence as crucial to the
support of friendly Muslim countries — Saudi Arabia, Egypt,
Jordan and Pakistan — whose governments fear that punishing
military action by the United States against the terrorists
will spur widespread popular unrest. 

In the Saudi port city of Jidda, the foreign ministers of
six Persian Gulf states, including Saudi Arabia, pledged
"total support and co-operation for international efforts
to find the authors of the terrorist acts and bring them to
justice." But the statement offered no specific military or
other assistance. 

King Abdullah of Jordan — which failed to side with the
United States in the gulf war — sounded less equivocal in
his support of whatever Washington might do. 

"We realize that the start is always going to be difficult,
the first step is always going to be a burden," the king
said on ABC's "This Week." "But I believe that the steps
undertaken by the American armed forces will have the full
support of the international community." 

Two reports are expected within days, officials said: a
public one from the State Department, and a secret one
prepared by United States intelligence agencies and
including details from trusted foreign sources. Officials
say they are still arguing over how much information to
release — and to which countries. 

The list of nations trusted with all the secret information
would be short, and some countries might receive fewer
details than others, they said. 

The evident intention is to produce evidence before any
American military strike. "If you release it after the
action, you're lost," one official said, since Muslim
governments would have no chance to make the case for the
American acts. 

The evidence, American officials say, reaches from the
southern tip of Manhattan to the foothills of the Hindu
Kush mountains of Afghanistan. It traces a group that
started out running material aid to the rebels fighting the
Soviet invaders of Afghanistan in the 1980's and wound up
declaring war on the United States. 

The strongest is Mr. bin Laden's declaration of war on Feb.
23, 1998. He proclaimed from his Afghan redoubt: "To kill
Americans and their allies, both civil and military, is an
individual duty of every Muslim who is able." 

The national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, said today
that the government had "very good evidence of links"
between bin Laden operatives "and what happened on Sept.
11." She added: "We are drawing in investigative services,
law enforcement, intelligence from a lot of countries. And
so we need to be careful with how we use this information."


The public report will omit intercepts by the National
Security Agency, including conversations among people on
the fringes of Mr. bin Laden's network right after the
attacks, officials said. 

The secret report will include that type of intelligence
information, which will be shared only with some trusted
governments. 

Counterterrorism and intelligence officers are sifting
through a flood of warnings and threats against the United
States made this spring and summer, looking for leads back
to Mr. bin Laden. Some of those reports were not quickly
reviewed before Sept. 11, in part because of a lack of
trained analysts and trusted translators throughout the
government, officials said. 

"There are not enough people to examine all the
information," said Representative Porter Goss of Florida,
the ranking Republican on the House intelligence committee
and a former C.I.A. officer. Too few analysts and
translators must pore over "reams and reams and reams and
reams of take, and say, `Does any of this stuff mean
anything?' And especially if it's in a foreign language or
in code, that's very hard to deal with. That's hard work." 

Senior officials said they could not include sensitive
intelligence information because it could compromise their
sources and methods of investigation. But they were also
aware, they said, of the concerns of Arab and other
leaders. The Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, has
said the American response should be based on justice, not
vengeance. 

The Egyptian leader, Hosni Mubarak, has repeatedly said the
United States must be sure that it had the evidence against
the suspects. An American attack could otherwise backfire
and nurture more Islamic extremists, he has warned. Mr.
Mubarak did not appear to suggest that the evidence be
sufficient to prove a court case but rather that it
persuade the man in the street that Mr. bin Laden is to
blame. 

Previous administrations have made effective use of public
presentations — most often at the United Nations Security
Council — to convince the world that military action was
necessary. 

As the chief United States delegate to the United Nations,
Madeleine K. Albright displayed photographs of the bombs
and integrated circuits that American officials said were
to be used in a plot by Iraq to assassinate former
President George Bush when he was visiting Kuwait in 1993. 

The presentation was intended to justify the Clinton
administration's missile attack on an Iraqi intelligence
site in Baghdad. 

One of the most dramatic evidentiary presentations was made
by the Kennedy administration's ambassador to the United
Nations, Adlai E. Stevenson, who appeared in the Security
Council chamber with photographs of Soviet missiles in Cuba
during the Cuban missile crisis in 1962. 

But in 1986, American intelligence agencies were dismayed
that the Reagan administration publicly cited its
electronic interception of messages between Libya and its
diplomatic posts after the terrorist bombing of a West
Berlin discotheque to win support for a retaliatory bombing
raid against the Libyan leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi. 

Administration officials took care today to note that the
White House was not preparing evidence on Mr. Bin Laden to
satisfy the demand for it from the Taliban rulers of
Afghanistan. 

"This is not a government that has given to Western
jurispudence, so these calls for proof are somewhat
misplaced," the national security adviser, Condoleezza
Rice, said on CNN's "Late Edition." Ms. Rice said the
evidence would be laid out for "friends, allies and the
American people and others." 

In an extended interview on NBC's "Meet the Press,"
Secretary Powell said that both he and the Pentagon were
sensitive to the warnings of Mr. Mubarak that a new
generation of militants could emerge from American military
assaults. 

The secretary stressed that the first objective would be
"Al Qaeda, Osama bin Laden and his presence in
Afghanistan." After that goal had been reached, the
administration would consider options against other sources
of terrorist activity. 

By keeping the narrow scope, and not immediately focusing
on Iraq, as Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz
has urged, the United States could keep international
support, he said. 

For now, Secretary Powell declined to link Iraq to the
attacks. "There are some reports of linkages, but not to
the extent that I would say today there is a clear link,
but we're looking for links and we're watching very, very
carefully," he said. 

While Secretary Powell argued for a narrow focus, Ms. Rice
did not exclude toppling the Taliban government. "It's a
very repressive and terrible regime," she said. "The Afghan
people would be better off without it. We will see what
means are at our disposal to do that."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/24/international/24DIPL.html?ex=1002322663&ei=1&en=fcf022a9586e2939



HOW TO ADVERTISE
---------------------------------
For information on advertising in e-mail newsletters 
or other creative advertising opportunities with The 
New York Times on the Web, please contact Alyson 
Racer at alyson at nytimes.com or visit our online media 
kit at http://www.nytimes.com/adinfo

For general information about NYTimes.com, write to 
help at nytimes.com.  

Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company