Deep Politics Forum

From http://www.theaustralian.com.au/gaddafi-...6025836662

Quote:COLONEL Muammar Gaddafi's regime secretly provided information to Britain and the US on Islamic extremists in the east of Libya, according to leaked diplomatic cables and intelligence sources. The names of hundreds of suspects were passed to the CIA and British intelligence.
"There was a strong, shared concern between Gaddafi and the US and UK Governments about radical Sunni jihadist terrorists, including the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)," Paul Pillar, a CIA veteran who negotiated with Libya over its nuclear program, told The Times.
Diplomatic cables obtained by WikiLeaks paint eastern Libya as a fertile ground for radical extremism. One source told US officials in 2008 that for young men from Derna, a city east of Benghazi, "resistance against coalition forces in Iraq was an important act of 'jihad' and a last act of defiance against the Gaddafi regime".

From Magda's post #38:

Quote:Attending the fateful Feb. 18 meeting were Netanyahu, Barak, Lieberman. They heard assessments from IDF intelligence chief Gen. Aviv Kochavi and Chairman of the Division of North Africa in the Foreign Ministry, Shalom Cohen, that if Ghaddafi falls, a radical Islamic regime would follow him. Based on this unlikely assessment, the Prime Minister decided, supposedly on behalf of the Israeli people, to bail out Libya's leader with a well trained and equipped army of African guns for hire. He contacted Gen. Ziv who arranged a meeting with Ghaddafi military representatives in the Chadian capital N'djamena. Joining them were two reps from the Israeli government, former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, and Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser. There, a deal between Israel and Libya was cut.

There should be no shock that Ghaddafi agreed. He had two choices; be overthrown or be saved by Israel. Naturally, he chose the latter even though the terms were tough. Global CST would supply tens of thousands of mercenaries for 5 billion American bucks. After they slaughtered the last of the rebels, Israel would be granted rights to explore and export Libyan oil hushhushedly and Gen. Ziv would be permitted to operate his army from Libyan soil to spread its unique talents at saving dictators throughout Africa.

Ghaddafi almost got his money's worth...and then a UN resolution and mostly an American force attacked Libya with bombs and missiles. Suddenly, Ghaddafi could and likely would lose. However, Ziv is not merely a maverick general:

http://nuestrosricos.blogspot.com/2008/0...mpart.html
General Ziv is on the payroll of Counterterrorism International and is member of the Task Force on Future Terrorism (FOTFF), created in June 2005 by the Office of Homeland Security of *Israel? No, of the USA.FOTFF operates under the orders of then-Secretary Michael Chertoff and Lee Hamilton.

And if Ghaddafi should lose, the thoughtful U.S. Ambassador to the Security Council has requested that the mercenaries intervening in Libya be exempt from prosecution under international law. And if recent history is any indication, Ghaddafi is guaranteed to get shafted. Let's look at the last five years of Ziv's career:

If this is true, then together with Peter Lemkin's post #39 with its historical context of CIA implausibly deniable links with Gadaffi, then the Libyan people are, in the deep political sense, COMPLETELY FUCKED.

Who are the Libyan Freedom Fighters and Their Patrons?

by Prof. Peter Dale Scott


Global Research, March 25, 2011
The Asia-Pacific Journal Vol 9, Issue 13 No 3, March 28, 2011.

Email this article to a friend
Print this article



Share

Preface

Peter Dale Scott's Libyan Notebook

The world is facing a very unpredictable and potentially dangerous situation in North Africa and the Middle East. What began as a memorable, promising, relatively nonviolent achievement of New Politics - the Revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt - has morphed very swiftly into a recrudescence of old habits: America, already mired in two decade-long wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and sporadic air attacks in Yemen and Somalia, now, bombing yet another Third World Country, in this case Libya.

USS Barry launches a Tomahawk missile in support of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the Mediterranean Sea, March 19, 2011. US government handout
The initially stated aim of this bombing was to diminish Libyan civilian casualties. But many, senior figures in Washington, including President Obama, have indicated that the US is gearing up for a quite different war for regime change, one that may well be protracted and could also easily expand beyond Libya.1 If it does expand, the hope for a nonviolent transition to civilian government in Tunisia and Egypt and other Middle East nations experiencing political unrest, may be lost to a hard-edged militarization of government, especially in Egypt. All of us, not just Egyptians, have a major stake in seeing that that does not happen.
The present article does not attempt to propose solutions or a course of action for the United States and its allies, or for the people of the Middle East. It attempts rather to examine the nature of the forces that have emerged in Libya over the last four decades that are presently being played out.
To this end I have begun to compile what I call my Libyan Notebook, a collection of relevant facts that underlie the present crisis. This Notebook will be judgmental, in that I am biased towards collecting facts that the US media tend to ignore, facts that are the product in many instances of investigative reporting that cuts to the heart of power relations, deep structures, and economic interests in the region including the US, Israel, and the Arab States as these have played out over the last two decades and more. But I hope that it will be usefully objective and open-ended, permitting others to draw diverse conclusions from the same set of facts.2
I wish to begin with two ill-understood topics: I. Who Are the Libyan Opposition, and II. Where Are the Libyan Rebel Arms Coming From?

I. Who Are the Libyan Opposition
1) Historically:
"If Muammar Al Gaddafi behaved paranoid, it was for good reason. It wasn't long after he reached the age of 27 and led a small group of junior military officers in a bloodless coup d'état against Libyan King Idris on September 1, 1969, that threats to his power and life emerged - from monarchists, Israeli Mossad, Palestinian disaffections, Saudi security, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL), the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO), British intelligence, United States antagonism and, in 1995, the most serious of all, Al Qaeda-like Libyan Islamic fighting group, known as Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya. The Colonel reacted brutally, by either expelling or killing those he feared were against him."3

Gaddafi and Nasser in a 1969 Photo. Getty image
2) National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL)
"With the aim of overthrowing Libyan strongman Muammar Khadafy, Israel and the U.S. trained anti-Libyan rebels in a number of West and Central African countries. The Paris-based African Confidential newsletter reported on January 5th, 1989, that the US and Israel had set up a series of bases in Chad and other neighboring countries to train 2000 Libyan rebels captured by the Chad army. The group, called The National Front for the Salvation of Libya, was based in Chad."4
"US official records indicate that funding for the Chad-based secret war against Libya also came from Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Morocco, Israel and Iraq. The Saudis, for instance, donated $7m to an opposition group, the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (also backed by French intelligence and the CIA). But a plan to assassinate Gadafi and take over the government on 8 May 1984 was crushed. In the following year, the US asked Egypt to invade Libya and overthrow Gadafi but President Mubarak refused. By the end of 1985, the Washington Post had exposed the plan after congressional leaders opposing it wrote in protest to President Reagan."5
"The FNSL [National Front for the Salvation of Libya] was part of the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition held in London in 2005, and British resources are being used to support the FNSL and other 'opposition' in Libya.... The FNSL held its national congress in the USA in July 2007. Reports of 'atrocities' and civilian deaths are being channeled into the western press from operations in Washington DC, and the opposition FNSL is reportedly organizing resistance and military attacks from both inside and outside Libya."6
3) National Conference for the Libyan Opposition (NCLO),
"The main group leading the insurrection is the National Conference for the Libyan Opposition which includes the National Front for the Salvation of Libya (NFSL). The NFSL, which is leading the violence, is a U.S.-sponsored armed militia of mostly Libyan expatriates and tribes opposed to al-Qaddafi."7
4) Al-Jama'a al-Islamiyyah al-Muqatilah bi-Libya (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, LIFG)
"The LIFG was founded in 1995 by a group of mujahideen veterans who had fought against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Upon their return to Libya they grew angry about what they viewed as the corruption and impiety of the Libyan regime and formed the LIFG to create a state that would show what they believed to be the true character of the Libyan people.

The most significant LIFG attack was a 1996 attempt to assassinate Gadhafi; LIFG members led by Wadi al-Shateh threw a bomb underneath his motorcade. The group also stages guerilla-style attacks against government security forces from its mountain bases. Although most LIFG members are strictly dedicated to toppling Gadhafi, intelligence reportedly indicates that some have joined forces with al-Qaida to wage jihad against Libyan and Western interests worldwide. ....
As recently as February 2004, then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that "one of the most immediate threats [to U.S. security] is from smaller international Sunni extremist groups that have benefited from al-Qaida links. They include ... the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group."8

"In recent days Libyan officials have distributed security documents giving the details of Sufiyan al-Koumi, said to be a driver for Osama bin Laden, and of another militant allegedly involved in an "Islamic emirate" in Derna, in now-liberated eastern Libya. Koumi, the documents show, was freed in September 2010 as part of a "reform and repent" initiative organised by Saif al-Islam, Gaddafi's son....

The LIFG, established in Afghanistan in the 1990s, has assassinated dozens of Libyan soldiers and policemen. In 2009, to mark Gaddafi's 40 years in power, it apologised for trying to kill him and agreed to lay down its arms. MI6 [British Intelligence] has been accused in the past of supporting it. Six LIFG leaders, still in prison, disavowed their old ways and explained why fighting Gaddafi no longer constituted "legitimate" jihad. Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi, another freed LIFG member, denied the official claims. "Gaddafi is trying to divide the people," he told al-Jazeera. "He claims that there is an Islamist emirate in Derna and that I am its emir. He is taking advantage of the fact that I am a former political prisoner."

Derna is famous as the home of a large number of suicide bombers in Iraq. It is also deeply hostile to Gaddafi. "Residents of eastern Libya in general, and Derna in particular, view the Gaddadfa (Gaddafi's tribe) as uneducated, uncouth interlopers from an inconsequential part of the country who have 'stolen' the right to rule in Libya," US diplomats were told in 2008, in a cable since released by WikiLeaks.

The last 110 members of the LIFG were freed on 16 February, the day after the Libyan uprising began. One of those released, Abdulwahab Mohammed Kayed, is the brother of Abu Yahya Al Libi, one of al Qaida's top propagandists. Koumi fled Libya and is said to have ended up in Afghanistan working for Bin Laden. Captured in Pakistan, he was handed over to the US and sent to Guantánamo Bay in 2002. In 2009 he was sent back to Libya.9 US counter-terrorist experts have expressed concern that al-Qaida could take advantage of a political vacuum if Gaddafi is overthrown. But most analysts say that, although the Islamists' ideology has strong resonance in eastern Libya, there is no sign that the protests are going to be hijacked by them.10

Libyan Islamic Fighting Group Members released
"Fierce clashes between [Qadhafi's] security forces and Islamist guerrillas erupted in Benghazi in September 1995, leaving dozens killed on both sides. After weeks of intense fighting, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) formally declared its existence in a communiqué calling Qadhafi's government "an apostate regime that has blasphemed against the faith of God Almighty" and declaring its overthrow to be "the foremost duty after faith in God." [3] This and future LIFG communiqués were issued by Libyan Afghans who had been granted political asylum in Britain.... The involvement of the British government in the LIFG campaign against Qadhafi remains the subject of immense controversy. LIFG's next big operation, a failed attempt to assassinate Qadhafi in February 1996 that killed several of his bodyguards, was later said to have been financed by British intelligence to the tune of $160,000, according to ex-MI5 officer David Shayler. [4] While Shayler's allegations have not been independently confirmed, it is clear that Britain allowed LIFG to develop a base of logistical support and fundraising on its soil. At any rate, financing by bin Laden appears to have been much more important. According to one report, LIFG received up to $50,000 from the Saudi terrorist mastermind for each of its militants killed on the battlefield." [2005]11
"Americans, Britons and the French are finding themselves as comrades in arms with the rebel Islamic Fighting Group, the most radical element in the Al Qaeda network [to bring down Gaddhafi]. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted the risks of the unholy alliance in a congressional hearing, saying that the Libyan opposition is probably more anti-American than Muammar Gaddhafi. A decade ago, this very same delusion of a Western-Islamist partnership in Kosovo, Bosnia and Chechnya ended abruptly in the 9/11 attacks."12
5) Transitional National Council
"A RIVAL transitional government to the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi looks set to win US and other international support as momentum builds to oust the longtime dictator.
US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton confirmed yesterday that the Obama administration was reaching out to opponents of Colonel Gaddafi. She said the US was willing to offer any kind of assistance' to remove him from power.
Protest leaders who have taken control in Libya's eastern cities claim to have established a transitional "national council" that amounts to rival rule. They have called on the country's army to join them as they prepare for an attack on the capital, Tripoli, where the Libyan leader retains control.
Confident the Libyan leader's 42-year rule was coming to an end, Mrs Clinton said yesterday: We are just at the beginning of what will follow Gaddafi.'"13
6) Facebook
"He [Omar El- Hariri, Chief of Armed Forces for the Transitional National Council] remained under close surveillance by the security forces until Feb. 17, when the revolution started. It was not initiated by prominent figures of the older generation, he said, but began spontaneously when Tunisia and Egypt inspired the youth. Children of Facebook!' he declared, in English, with a broad smile."14
7) Oil
"Libyan rebels in Benghazi said they have created a new national oil company to replace the corporation controlled by leader Muammar Qaddafi whose assets were frozen by the United Nations Security Council.
The Transitional National Council released a statement announcing the decision made at a March 19 meeting to establish the Libyan Oil Company as supervisory authority on oil production and policies in the country, based temporarily in Benghazi, and the appointment of an interim director general" of the company.
The Council also said it "designated the Central Bank of Benghazi as a monetary authority competent in monetary policies in Libya and the appointment of a governor to the Central Bank of Libya, with a temporary headquarters in Benghazi."15

Peter Dale Scott's Libyan Notebook
II. Where Are the Libyan Rebel Arms Coming From?
Robert Fisk, "Libya in turmoil: America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels;
Obama asks Saudis to airlift weapons into Benghazi," Independent, March 7, 2011:
"Desperate to avoid US military involvement in Libya in the event of a prolonged struggle between the Gaddafi regime and its opponents, the Americans have asked Saudi Arabia if it can supply weapons to the rebels in Benghazi. The Saudi Kingdom, already facing a "day of rage" from its 10 per cent Shia Muslim community on Friday, with a ban on all demonstrations, has so far failed to respond to Washington's highly classified request, although King Abdullah personally loathes the Libyan leader, who tried to assassinate him just over a year ago.
Washington's request is in line with other US military co-operation with the Saudis. The royal family in Jeddah, which was deeply involved in the Contra scandal during the Reagan administration, gave immediate support to American efforts to arm guerrillas fighting the Soviet army in Afghanistan in 1980 ....
But the Saudis remain the only US Arab ally strategically placed and capable of furnishing weapons to the guerrillas of Libya. Their assistance would allow Washington to disclaim any military involvement in the supply chain - even though the arms would be American and paid for by the Saudis.
The Saudis have been told that opponents of Gaddafi need anti-tank rockets and mortars as a first priority to hold off attacks by Gaddafi's armour, and ground-to-air missiles to shoot down his fighter-bombers.
Supplies could reach Benghazi within 48 hours but they would need to be delivered to air bases in Libya or to Benghazi airport. If the guerrillas can then go on to the offensive and assault Gaddafi's strongholds in western Libya, the political pressure on America and Nato - not least from Republican members of Congress - to establish a no-fly zone would be reduced.
US military planners have already made it clear that a zone of this kind would necessitate US air attacks on Libya's functioning, if seriously depleted, anti-aircraft missile bases, thus bringing Washington directly into the war on the side of Gaddafi's opponents.
For several days now, US Awacs surveillance aircraft have been flying around Libya, making constant contact with Malta air traffic control and requesting details of Libyan flight patterns, including journeys made in the past 48 hours by Gaddafi's private jet which flew to Jordan and back to Libya just before the weekend.
Officially, Nato will only describe the presence of American Awacs planes as part of its post-9/11 Operation Active Endeavour, which has broad reach to undertake aerial counter-terrorism measures in the Middle East region.

US Awacs monitor Libya
The data from the Awacs is streamed to all Nato countries under the mission's existing mandate. Now that Gaddafi has been reinstated as a super-terrorist in the West's lexicon, however, the Nato mission can easily be used to search for targets of opportunity in Libya if active military operations are undertaken.
Al Jazeera English television channel last night broadcast recordings made by American aircraft to Maltese air traffic control, requesting information about Libyan flights, especially that of Gaddafi's jet.
An American Awacs aircraft, tail number LX-N90442 could be heard contacting the Malta control tower on Saturday for information about a Libyan Dassault-Falcon 900 jet 5A-DCN on its way from Amman to Mitiga, Gaddafi's own VIP airport.
Nato Awacs 07 is heard to say: "Do you have information on an aircraft with the Squawk 2017 position about 85 miles east of our [sic]?"
Malta air traffic control replies: "Seven, that sounds to be Falcon 900- at flight level 340, with a destination Mitiga, according to flight plan."
But Saudi Arabia is already facing dangers from a co-ordinated day of protest by its own Shia Muslim citizens who, emboldened by the Shia uprising in the neighbouring island of Bahrain, have called for street protests against the ruling family of al-Saud on Friday.
After pouring troops and security police into the province of Qatif last week, the Saudis announced a nationwide ban on all public demonstrations.
Shia organisers claim that up to 20,000 protesters plan to demonstrate with women in the front rows to prevent the Saudi army from opening fire.
If the Saudi government accedes to America's request to send guns and missiles to Libyan rebels, however, it would be almost impossible for President Barack Obama to condemn the kingdom for any violence against the Shias of the north-east provinces.
Thus has the Arab awakening, the demand for democracy in North Africa, the Shia revolt and the rising against Gaddafi become entangled in the space of just a few hours with US military priorities in the region. "16
"Libya rebels coordinating with West on air assault," Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011
"Reports from the region suggest that the Saudis and Egyptians have been providing arms. Though U.S. officials could not confirm that, they say it is plausible."17
"Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels," Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011:
"CAIRO-Egypt's military has begun shipping arms over the border to Libyan rebels with Washington's knowledge, U.S. and Libyan rebel officials said.
The shipments-mostly small arms such as assault rifles and ammunition-appear to be the first confirmed case of an outside government arming the rebel fighters. Those fighters have been losing ground for days in the face of a steady westward advance by forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The Egyptian shipments are the strongest indication to date that some Arab countries are heeding Western calls to take a lead in efforts to intervene on behalf of pro-democracy rebels in their fight against Mr. Gadhafi in Libya. Washington and other Western countries have long voiced frustration with Arab states' unwillingness to help resolve crises in their own region, even as they criticized Western powers for attempting to do so.
The shipments also follow an unusually robust diplomatic response from Arab states. There have been rare public calls for foreign military intervention in an Arab country, including a vote by the 23-member Arab League last week urging the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.
The vote provided critical political cover to Western powers wary of intervening militarily without a broad regional and international mandate. On Thursday evening, the U.N. Security Council voted on a resolution endorsing a no-fly zone in Libya and authorizing military action in support of the rebels.
Within the council, Lebanon took a lead role drafting and circulating the draft of the resolution, which calls for "all necessary measures" to enforce a ban on flights over Libya. The United Arab Emirates and Qatar have taken the lead in offering to participate in enforcing a no-fly zone, according to U.N. diplomats.
Libyan rebel officials in Benghazi, meanwhile, have praised Qatar from the first days of the uprising, calling the small Gulf state their staunchest ally. Qatar has consistently pressed behind the scenes for tough and urgent international action behind the scenes, these officials said.
Qatari flags fly prominently in rebel-held Benghazi. After pro-Gadhafi forces retook the town of Ras Lanuf last week, Libyan state TV broadcast images of food-aid packages bearing the Qatari flag.

Anti-Gadhafi fighters in Benghazi
The White House has been reluctant to back calls from leaders in Congress for arming Libya's rebels directly, arguing that the U.S. must first fully assess who the fighters are and what policies they will pursue if they succeeded in toppling Col. Gadhafi. U.S. officials believe the opposition includes some Islamist elements. They fear that Islamist groups hostile to the U.S. could try to hijack the opposition and take any arms that are provided.
The Egyptian weapons transfers began a few days ago' and are ongoing, according to a senior U.S. official. There's no formal U.S. policy or acknowledgement that this is going on,' said the senior official. But this is something we have knowledge of.'
Calls to Egypt's foreign ministry and the spokesman for the prime minister seeking comment went unanswered. There is no means of reaching Egypt's military for comment. An Egyptian official in Washington said he had no knowledge of weapon shipments.
The U.S. official also noted that the shipments appeared to come "too little, too late" to tip the military balance in favor of the rebels, who have faced an onslaught from Libyan forces backed by tanks, artillery and aircraft.
"We know the Egyptian military council is helping us, but they can't be so visible," said Hani Souflakis, a Libyan businessman in Cairo who has been acting as a rebel liaison with the Egyptian government since the uprising began.
"Weapons are getting through," said Mr. Souflakis, who says he has regular contacts with Egyptian officials in Cairo and the rebel leadership in Libya. "Americans have given the green light to the Egyptians to help. The Americans don't want to be involved in a direct level, but the Egyptians wouldn't do it if they didn't get the green light."
Western officials and rebel leaders in Libya said the U.S. has wanted to avoid being seen as taking a leadership role in any military action against Mr. Gadhafi after its invasions of Iraq and Afganistan fueled anger and mistrust with Washington throughout the region.
But the U.S. stated clearly it wants Mr. Gadhafi out of power and has signaled it would support those offering help to the rebels militarily or otherwise.
A spokesman for the rebel government in Benghazi said arms shipments have begun arriving to the rebels but declined to specify where they came from.
"Our military committee is purchasing arms and arming our people. The weapons are coming, but the nature of the weapons, the amount, where it's coming from, that has been classified," said the spokesman, Mustafa al-Gherryani.
The U.S. official said Egypt wanted to keep the shipments covert. In public, Egypt has sought to maintain a neutral stance toward the rebel uprising in Libya. Egypt abstained during the Arab League's vote calling for the U.N. to impose a no-fly zone on Mr. Gadhafi, according to people familiar with the internal Arab League deliberations.
Hundreds of thousands of Egyptian laborers are believed to still be in Libya.
On the other hand, the Egyptian military's covert support for the rebels suggests that it has calculated that Mr. Gadhafi is unlikely to remain in power, at least in the eastern half of the country, and therefore Egypt is eager to begin to build good relations with the rebels.
Rebel forces in the past 24 hours appeared to make some progress fending off pro-Gadhafi forces' assaults and have rolled out new weapons for the first time since the uprising began last month. Among them are rebel tanks that have taken up positions on the front lines in recent days. Rebels also launched fighter-jet attacks on government positions on Wednesday for the first time so far.
The tanks and fighter jets are believed to have been among the weapons seized by rebels from defected units of the Libyan army in the eastern half of the country, but they have received spare parts or trained mechanics from outside the country to help them deploy them, some rebel officials have speculated.
-Sam Dagher and Adam Entous contributed to this article.18
Benjamin Gottlieb, "Egypt Arms Libyan Rebels As Gaddafi's Conquest Continues," NeonTommy Annenberg Digital News, March 17, 2011:
Arms shipments from Egypt's military have begun flowing across the border into Libya with U.S. knowledge, Libyan rebels and U.S. officials said Thursday.
Made up mostly of small arms, such as assault rifles and ammunition, the shipments are the first confirmed reports of an outside government supporting rebel fighters with weapons. Rebels have been loosing ground for days against pro-Gaddafi forces aiming to end the conflict before foreign intervention plans are finalized.
Although the U.N. approved a "no-fly zone" over Libya late Thursday, rebel forces fear that any planned foreign intervention would be too little to late.

No-Fly Zone
The shipment of arms indicated an unusually bold response by an Arab nation intervening in a conflict outside its borders. There have also been rare public decrees for the West to intervene in the conflict - the Arab League voted 23-0 last week encouraging the U.N. to impose the "no-fly zone" over Libya.
In spite of reports of arms flowing across the Egyptian boarder, Egyptian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Menha Bakhoum told Reuters that Egypt would not be involved in any military intervention in neighboring Libya.
"Egypt will not be among those Arab states. We will not be involved in any military intervention. No intervention period," Bakhoum said.
Bakhoum was responding to comments by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who said Thursday that discussions were on the table regarding Arab involvement in U.S. and European intervention in the conflict.
Clinton has said repeatedly that the U.S. desires involvement from a neighboring Arab nation in any planned intervention.
A Libyan rebel government spokesman in Benghazi, Mustafa al-Gherryani, said rebels have begun receiving arms shipments from neighboring nations, however he declined to reveal their origin.
"Our military committee is purchasing arms and arming our people. The weapons are coming, but the nature of the weapons, the amount, where it's coming from, that has been classified," he said.19
Yoichi Shimatsu, "Mideast Revolutions and 9-11 Intrigues Created in Qatar," New America Media, March 1, 2011
"It may puzzle and perhaps dismay young protesters in Benghazi, Cairo and Tunisia that their democratic hopes are being manipulated by an ultra-conservative Arab elite which has underhandedly backed a surge of militant Islamist radicals across North Africa. Credible U.S. intelligence reports have cited evidence pointing to Qatar's long-running support for the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda and jihadist fighters returning from Afghanistan.
The links to Qatar uncovered by anti-terrorism investigators in the wake of 9-11 need to be reexamined now that the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), an on-and-off affiliate of Al Qaeda, has seized armories across half of the North African country. Libya's well-stocked arsenals contain high-power explosives, rocket launchers and chemical weapons. LIFG is on the State Department's terrorist list.
Most worrying, according to a U.S. intelligence official cited by CNN, is the probable loss of chemical weapons. The Federation of American Scientists reports that, as of 2008, only 40 percent of Libya's mustard gas was destroyed in the second round of decommissioning. Chemical canisters along the Egyptian border were yet to be retrieved and are now presumably in the hands of armed militants.
After initially letting slip that the earliest Libyan protests were organized by the LIFG, Al Jazeera quickly changed its line to present a heavily filtered account portraying the events as peaceful protests'. To explain away the gunshot deaths of Libyan soldiers during the uprising, the Qatar-based network presented a bizarre scenario of 150 dead soldiers in Libya having been executed by their officers for refusing to fight'. The mysterious officers then miraculously vacated their base disappearing into thin air while surrounded by angry protesters! Off the record, one American intelligence analyst called these media claims an absurdity' and suggested instead the obvious: that the soldiers were gunned down in an armed assault by war-hardened returned militants from Iraq and Afghanistan....
According to a Congressional Research Service report of January 2008, Some observers have raised questions about possible support for Al Qaeda by some Qatari citizens, including members of Qatar's large ruling family. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, Qatar's Interior Minister provided a safe haven to 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed during the mid-1990s, and press reports indicate other terrorists may have received financial support or safe haven in Qatar after September 11, 2001.'
The national security chief, Interior Minister Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, is further mentioned as paying for a 1995 trip by Khalid Shaikh Mohammed to join the Bosnia jihad.' The report recalls how after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, FBI officials "narrowly missed an opportunity to capture" the suspect in Qatar. Former U.S. officials have since stated their belief that a high-ranking member of the Qatari government alerted him to the impending raid, allowing him to flee the country.'"20

Peter Dale Scott, a former Canadian diplomat and English Professor at the University of California, Berkeley, is the author of Drugs Oil and War, The Road to 9/11, The War Conspiracy: JFK, 9/11, and the Deep Politics of War. His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan. Peter Dale Scott is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

His most recent book is American War Machine: Deep Politics, the CIA Global Drug Connection and the Road to Afghanistan.
His website, which contains a wealth of his writings, is here.
Notes
1 "Defense Secretary Gates, who recently warned against any further protracted US ground war, said on March 23 that the end of military action in Libya is unknown and could last longer than a few weeks. I think there are any number of possible outcomes here and no one is in a position to predict them,' Gates told reporters in Egypt" (C-Span, March 24, 2011).
2 Interested readers may wish to consult my first exploration, "Googling Revolution' in North Africa."
3 Dan Lieberman, "Muammar Al Gaddafi Meets His Own Rebels," CounterCurrents.org, March 9, 2011.
4 Joel Bainerman, Inside the Covert Operations of the CIA & Israel's Mossad (New York: S.P.I. Books, 1994), 14.
5 Richard Keeble, "The Secret War Against Libya," MediaLens, 2002.
6 "Petroleum and Empire in North Africa. NATO Invasion of Libya Underway," By Keith Harmon Snow, 2 March 2011.
7 Ghali Hassan, "U.S. Love Affair with Murderous Dictators and Hate for Democracy." Axis of Logic, Mar 17, 2011.
8 Center for Defense Information, "In the Spotlight: The Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG)," January 18, 2005
9 Qadhafi was concerned about Al Qaeda terrorism in Libya, and in 1996 Libya became the first government to place Osama bin Laden on Interpol's Wanted List (Rohan Gunaratna, Inside Al Qaeda: Global Network of Terror [New York: Columbia UP, 2002], 142). Thereafter American and Libyan intelligence collaborated closely for some years against Al Qaeda. Beginning when?
10 Ian Black, "Libya rebels rejects Gaddafi's al-Qaida spin," Guardian, March 1, 2011.
11 =308]Gary Gambill, "The Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG), Jamestown Foundation," Terrorism Monitor, May 5, 2005,; citing Al-Hayat (London), 20 October 1995 ["communiqué"]; "The Shayler affair: The spooks, the Colonel and the jailed whistle-blower," The Observer (London), 9 August 1998; Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquié, Ben Laden: La Verite interdite (Bin Ladin: The Forbidden Truth). Cf. also Annie Machon, Spies, Lies and Whistleblowers: MI5, MI6 And the Shayler Affair (Book Guild Publishing, 2005) [Shayler].
12 Yoichi Shimatsu, "Attack on Libya: Why Odyssey Dawn Is Doomed," New America Media, March 20, 2011.
13 "US reaches out to Libyan insurgents," The Australian, March 1, 2011,
14 "How a onetime friend to Gadhafi became his rival," Globe and Mail [Toronto], March 4, 2011.
15 Libyan Rebel Council in Benghazi Forms Oil Company to Replace Qaddafi's," Bloomberg, March 22, 2011.
16 Robert Fisk, "America's secret plan to arm Libya's rebels," Independent, March 7, 2011.
17 "Libya rebels coordinating with West on air assault," Los Angeles Times, March 24, 2011.
18 "Egypt Said to Arm Libya Rebels," Wall Street Journal, March 17, 2011,
19 Benjamin Gottlieb, "Egypt Arms Libyan Rebels As Gaddafi's Conquest Continues," NeonTommy Annenberg Digital News, March 17, 2011.
20 Yoichi Shimatsu, "Mideast Revolutions and 9-11 Intrigues Created in Qatar," New America Media, March 1, 2011. The al-Thani family's protection of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is confirmed by former CIA officer Robert Baer (Los Angeles Times, March 23, 2003). Cf. Robert Baer, Sleeping with the Devil (New York: Crown, 2003); Peter Lance, Triple Cross (New York: Regan/HarperCollins, 2006), 234-37.

The Biggest CIA Scandal in History Has Its Feet in the Starting Blocks in a Houston Court House

by Michael C. Ruppert

[The following article appeared in the January, 2000 issue of From The Wilderness]

The following is written after examining more than 900 pages of documents, in four volumes, filed since last September, in Houston Federal Court, by attorneys representing former CIA operative Edwin P. Wilson and the United States Department of Justice. As strange as it may seem, FTW assures you that there is a document on file or an on-the-record quote to support everything we now tell you.

On February 2, 1983, the Houston trial of former CIA agent Edwin P. Wilson, on Federal charges that he had unlawfully sold explosives to Libya, hung at a truly precarious moment. In chambers, the Judge hearing the case had refused to allow a CIA witness, using the pseudonym William Larson, to testify using a false name. The CIA, and prosecutors like aggressive Northern Virginia Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA) Ted Greenberg, relying on investigative materials produced under the direction of Washington, D.C. AUSAs Larry Barcella and Carol Bruce, were also concerned about limiting Wilson's ability to cross examine Larson for "security" reasons. Larson's intended testimony would have included statements that, according to CIA records under Larson's care, Ed Wilson had not been a CIA employee or done any work for the Agency since 1971.

According to Barcella, who gave a detailed interview to FTW for this story, the Judge's ruling raised serious security concerns for the Justice Department. The CIA records issue still needed to be addressed from another angle - and quickly. Wilson's defense had already made the case that the CIA had known and sanctioned the activities for which he was now on trial. That position needed to be countered in the rebuttal phase before the case went to the jury. Time was running out.

Ed Wilson stood accused of shipping 42,000 pounds of the plastic explosive C-4 directly to Libyan dictator Moammar Qadaffy in 1977, and then hiring U.S. experts - former U.S. Army Green Berets - to teach Qadaffy's people how to make bombs shaped like lamps, ashtrays and radios. Bombs were actually made, and foes of Qadaffy were actually murdered. This was the ongoing crime that had made Wilson, and his still-missing accomplice, former CIA employee Frank Terpil, the most infamous desperadoes in the world. C-4, according to some experts, is the most powerful non-nuclear explosive made. Two pounds in the right places can bring down a jumbo jet. Hence, 42,000 pounds would be enough to bring down 21,000 jumbo jets. C-4 is highly prized on the world's black markets and is much in demand. It is supposedly very tightly controlled where it is manufactured - in the U.S.

At the time it was shipped from Houston International Airport, in 1977, the 42,000 pounds of C-4 represented almost the entire United States domestic supply. It had been collected for Wilson by one California explosives distributor who collected it from a number of manufacturers around the country. Surprisingly, no one had officially noticed. Wilson had, in earlier and subsequent deals, also sold a number of handguns to Qadaffy, and several had been used in assassinations of Libyan dissidents in a number of countries, including the United States. It was these and other firearms violations by Wilson, including a scheme to ship more than a thousand M16 rifles to Qadaffy, that had put the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and Larry Barcella on Wilson's trail back in late 1977.

That investigation, which resulted in a 1982 Virginia conviction, led to the discovery of the C-4 shipment to Qadaffy. By January of 1983 Barcella and a team of dedicated BATF agents had been on Ed Wilson's trail for five long years. Barcella, in Houston as an observer and advisor, had been "twiddling his thumbs most of the time," but he did testify as a witness. He was, by virtue of his role as the originator of the cases, "the institutional memory" of DoJ. Ted Greenberg had, from the other side of the Potomac in Alexandria, taken over other investigations stemming from Wilson's activities which led eventually to the Eatsco scandal. That investigation involved Wilson cronies Tom Clines, Air Force General Richard Secord, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Eric von Marbod and the legendary Ted Shackley.

Shackley had served in the hottest CIA posts in history. He had run the Miami station known as JM-WAVE, targeting Fidel Castro in the early 1960s, and had been a key planner in the Bay of Pigs invasion. He was also directly involved in CIA attempts on Castro's life in concert with the Mafia. In the mid-sixties he had been the Chief of Station (COS) in Laos, running the largest covert operation in CIA history - a secret war intimately tied with opium and heroin smuggling and the abandonment of large numbers of American POWs. In the late sixties and early seventies he had served as COS in Saigon at the end of the Vietnam War. After leaving Saigon, Shackley had, for a time, served as Chief of the Western Hemisphere Division as the CIA orchestrated the overthrow of Chile's Salvador Allende. He had then become Associate Deputy Director of Operations (running all covert operations) in time to, as FTW believes, "preside" over Ed Wilson's Libyan affairs and the events that would ultimately result in the downfall of the Shah of Iran. Everywhere you looked in Wilson's life - post 1971 - you found either Shackley or his career-long deputy and sidekick, Tom Clines.

Shackley testified twice before Federal grand juries in the Wilson case. In one of those sessions, included in Wilson's recent court filings, he denied anything other than social contacts and a few meetings to evaluate information that never amounted to much. CIA Inspector General records (some still classified) belied Shackley's testimony. In light of voluminous CIA material, investigative reports, witness statements, BATF interviews with Shackley associates and a long litany of other records, Ted Shackley's testimony made a lot of people at CIA and DoJ very nervous. [FTW found it very interesting to note that, in his first testimony, Ted Shackley denied having ever met Ronald Reagan's CIA Director, William Casey. That may have to be the subject of another FTW article.]

Notes made by Justice Department lawyers in meetings held in late 1983, after Wilson's conviction, indicate their belief that Ted Shackley lied to the grand juries. Unattributed quotes found in meeting notes include the statements "Stupid -TS lied to GJ."

The Houston prosecution, for which Greenberg had served as the primary classified record handler, and AUSAs Jim Powers and Karen Morrissette, had no difficulty establishing that Wilson, in 1976, had secured plans for miniature timing devices from CIA contractors and, subsequently, had thousands manufactured and shipped to Libya. The Houston prosecution had no difficulty - using Barcella's, Bruce's and Greenberg's investigations - to establish that Wilson had conspired to obtain and ship the C-4 in 1977. Greenberg, Barcella, Bruce, Karen Morrissette and local Houston AUSAs also had absolutely no difficulty establishing that Wilson then chartered a DC-8 to ship the C-4 to Libya using falsified records. A hapless lawyer friend of Wilson's California explosives honcho, believing he had clearance from the CIA and other government agencies, even went along on the delivery. He had also been arrested and charged in the case. All of this took place under the guidance of Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Richard, and the supervision of Assistant Attorneys General Steven Trott and D. Lowell Jensen,

Evidence of Wilson's venality was not hard to find and put before the jury. While living in Libya for extended periods between 1977 and 1981, Wilson hired former Green Berets, some of whom were, according to FTW sources, alleged to be active-duty troops posing as rogues and retirees out for money. Using them, he set up an intensive instructional training program for Qadaffy that was intended to make the Libyan Colonel a credible terrorist threat - and credible foe - to any opponent, anywhere in the world. That effort was an unqualified success. People and things started blowing up and dying all over the place.

All the while, Wilson traveled the globe first-class, an ostentatiously wealthy man owning more than 6,000 acres of prime properties in Virginia, Great Britain and Malta. Much of that, the prosecution argued, had been paid for with millions from a Libyan dictator who had subsequently dispatched in 1982, if you believed the press, assassination teams to blow up Ronald Reagan in the White House.

Making Ed Wilson out to be a very nasty and unlikable individual was the easy part of the prosecution's case.

The second part of the prosecution's case was that one-time career CIA Agent Edwin P. Wilson had had absolutely no official relationship with the Agency since 1971. Wilson was, they argued, a good guy gone hopelessly bad who had abused his contacts, experience and the trust placed in him to commit horrible crimes behind the backs of his former colleagues. And that was where both the Department of Justice - and the CIA - were in deep, deep trouble on February 2, 1983.

Wilson, a one time career CIA agent, who had also worked for the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), was fighting for his life. An "open source" paper trail from CIA showed that he had not worked at Langley since 1971. Shortly thereafter he began working for a secret Navy operation known as Task Force 157. But, according to other records from both CIA and the Navy, he stopped working for the ONI in 1976 and none of his Navy work was connected to Libya. After that, or so it seemed, even though he continuously socialized with some of the most powerful people in the U.S. intelligence community and the military, he did no official work for anyone. It was in late 1975 and 1976, when George Bush ran the CIA, that Wilson, as an alleged rogue, opened ties to Qadaffy and began selling weapons, explosives and other services and equipment to the terrorist regime.

This would not be the last time that a so-called enemy of the United States in the Arab world would be supplied with weapons and bomb making materials on a watch under the command of George H. W. Bush. While Ed Wilson was training and equipping Qadaffy, he was also lunching with Bush protŽgŽ Shackley. He was providing personal airplanes for Air Force General Richard Secord to fly around in, and loaning large sums of money to Shackley's sidekick, Tom Clines. His company, Consultants International, once a CIA proprietary, which Wilson "bought" in 1971, was still receiving referral contacts from the Agency. And while former U.S. Army Green Berets, in Wilson's employ, were teaching Libyans how to blow things up, Clines, a high-ranking active CIA officer, was walking Wilson employee Douglas Schlachter through the halls at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia. In 1977 Clines even introduced Schlachter to Jimmy Carter's newly appointed CIA Director, Navy Admiral Stansfield Turner. Exclusive parties, horseback riding events and private hunting parties were held for the "A" list at Wilson's expansive Mount Airy farm in Northern Virginia.

With the January 1977 change in Presidents from Ford to Carter it was inevitable that George Bush (the elder) would have to leave as Director of Central Intelligence (DCI). Shackley, however, remained in charge of covert operations until December of that year. Then, with a kiss of death, as Wilson's work and life became increasingly high-profile, Turner removed Shackley from the prestigious post of ADDO and transferred him to a non hands-on post out of the loop. It was the signal that Shackley's career was over. This came at the same time that Turner gave 800 CIA career covert operatives pink slips and "early retirement." FTW believes that it is no coincidence that Barcella's and the BATF investigations of Wilson began at exactly the same time.

President Jimmy Carter had already begun the groundbreaking work with Menachem Begin of Israel and Anwar Sadat of Egypt that would lead to the Camp David peace accords. It would not be good PR for the U.S. to be exposed secretly arming Sadat's bitter enemy and next door neighbor, Moammar Qadaffy - especially since Qadaffy intended to kill Sadat.

The problem with the government's position in the Wilson case was absolutely huge. It was almost beyond huge. And the rationale implied during the trial, with the preceding and ensuing vilification of Wilson in major newspapers, People Magazine and best selling books like Manhunt by Peter Maas, was that the heinousness of his crimes justified obsession and even rule-bending in order to bring the monster to justice. CIA Inspector General investigations, some partially redacted, made available to Wilson's prosecutorial team, dating as far back as 1977, proved that Wilson had provided a number of often embarrassing services for the Agency since 1971. Those records also showed no less than 80 "non-social" contacts between Wilson and the CIA between 1971 and 1978. The Agency had many records, some still classified, of Wilson meeting with Agency personnel - especially Shackley, Clines or Shackley's secretary.

Contrary to what would later become almost nonsensical hairsplitting by some of the most powerful, and supposedly ethical, lawyers in the country, the CIA - according to incredibly detailed reports compiled by the BATF, the FBI and the CIA's own Inspector General - was "operationally tasking" Wilson and his employees to accomplish specific objectives in Libya before, during and after delivery of the C-4. Both the Justice Department and the CIA had witness statements that the CIA had been tasking and debriefing Wilson's employees at exactly the same time that Wilson's employees were teaching Qadaffy's people how to blow things up.

Wilson's defense against the government's case had concluded at the end of January. His attorneys had made a compelling argument that apparently threw the Justice Department and the CIA into a crisis mode. Exhibits filed in Wilson's motion show that Greenberg and Barcella were concerned about it in advance. The defense was simple: Edwin P. Wilson, a loyal American whose company, Consultants International, received CIA referral business throughout the period, had been sanctioned by the CIA for the purposes of gathering intelligence, gaining access to Soviet military equipment in Libyan hands and other murky objectives. If Ed Wilson had not been sanctioned, he certainly believed that he had been, and the litany of his CIA contacts reasonably justified that belief. It was more than enough to raise doubt in the mind of the jury.

Wilson and his trial lawyers had introduced evidence from 1977 CIA Inspector General reports and other records that supported his claims. It was not enough to dismiss the case, perhaps, but it was a point that the prosecution could not let go unchallenged. There was too much at stake. Contrary to Barcella's suggestion to FTW that he was essentially an observer in Houston he did say that, "One of the problems that I had certainly had, from prior cases involving claims of a CIA defense, was that the Agency's compartmentalization oftentimes required two or three different people to be doing record searches because only certain people would be allowed to search certain components of the Agency.

"It was a pain in the ass from a trial lawyer's standpoint because you would oftentimes end up with three different witnesses. And any good defense lawyerÉ. can make mincemeat out of them by bouncing back and forth between one and the otherÉ One of the things that I wanted was one person as a witness to be given the authority by the CIA to search all components of the Agency, not just a single component of the Agency. "

The man originally scheduled to perform that role, to speak for all of the records in the Central Intelligence Agency, the man with the pseudonym "Larson", had just been exposed to cross examination by Wilson and been withdrawn. There had to be another way.

The Briggs Declaration

Charles A. Briggs was, on February 3, 1983, the third highest-ranking official at the Central Intelligence Agency. He was one of few men at CIA who could break through the compartments and search anywhere for records. He was the man to solve the problem in Houston. In Langley, Virginia, at 2:23 P.M., Houston time (according to a government teletype), Charles Briggs signed a declaration stating that on November 8th of 1982 he had authorized a search of all records of the CIA "for any material that in any way pertains to Edwin P. Wilson or the various allegations concerning his activities after 28 February 1971, when he resigned from the CIA."

Paragraph 4 of the Briggs Declaration states, "According to CIA records, with one exception while he was employed by Naval Intelligence in 1972, Mr. Edwin P. Wilson was not asked or requested, directly or indirectly, to perform or provide any services, directly or indirectly, for CIA."

At 2:30 P.M., Houston time, CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin certified the affidavit and affixed the seal of the Central Intelligence Agency to it. It was also notarized by a notary public licensed in Fairfax County, Virginia. Harold Fahringer, one of Wilson's attorneys was served with a copy of the affidavit at 3:55 P.M. Houston time - presumably in Houston. According to a partially declassified CIA memorandum, included in Wilson's filings, dated March 15, 1983 (40 days after Wilson's conviction), on the day and evening of February 3, 1983 "CIA attorneys stated to Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA) Ted Greenberg that the Briggs affidavit should not be admitted into evidence as then written, and requested that Greenberg not introduce the affidavit.

"The signers of the affidavit further state that CIA General Counsel Stanley Sporkin stated that, at minimum, the word 'indirectly' should be removed from paragraph four of the Briggs affidavit.

The signers of the document further state in the document that AUSA Greenberg decided against complying with the CIA attorneys' requests described above."

Apparently, through the evening of February 3rd, the phone lines between Langley and Houston were smoking. FTW has interviewed a number of people close to the trial and none indicate that Ted Greenberg left Houston to retrieve the declaration. Stanley Sporkin knew that the affidavit was incorrect and so did a great many people at CIA. The Houston time apparently indicates that a copy was telexed to Wilson's lawyer and another copy was placed in the master DoJ case files in Houston. Larry Barcella has "no recollection" of being involved in those phone conversations. No phone logs listing participants in them have, as yet, been disclosed.

In researching this story FTW contacted best-selling author Peter Maas who wrote the book Manhunt which detailed the hunt for Ed Wilson and the four and a half year mission by Barcella, et al to bring him to justice. Maas indicated that he had been aware of the Briggs affidavit and questions surrounding its use in court. He was careful to state that it was his belief that Barcella had no knowledge of the inaccuracies in the document - or the controversy surrounding it - until after it had been introduced into evidence. The paper trail seems to contradict this position. Barcella was in almost every pre-trial conference discussing Wilson's history. He was aware of the affidavit's existence and, therefore, had to have been aware that it was inaccurate.

Maas was, however, more open on the subject of Ted Greenberg who apparently had the power to override the CIA's top lawyer and number three executive. Maas said simply that Greenberg was aggressive and not well liked by the other lawyers. He was, in Mass' opinion, "Capable of anything."

On February 4th 1983, apparently without objection, the Briggs declaration was entered into evidence by Assistant U.S. Attorneys. Both the prosecution and the defense rested and, in the afternoon, the jury began deliberations.

On the morning of February 5th, 1983, the jury sent a note to the trial judge requesting that the Briggs affidavit be reread. At 9:50 A.M. the Judge empanelled the jury and reread the affidavit to them. The jury returned to deliberations and, at 10:45 A.M., sent a note announcing that they had reached a verdict. Wilson was guilty on all counts. The jury never asked for any other exhibit to be reread.

That same day a UPI wire service story described the deliberations. "Juror Betty Metzler said the panel was divided 11-1 almost from the start, and one juror was not convinced until Saturday morning by rereading of Briggs' affidavit denying Wilson's actions had anything to do with the CIA."

A week later, on February 10, 1983, Attorney Kim E. Rosenfield in the Attorney General's office sent a memorandum to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Richard who ran DoJ's Criminal Division. The title of the memorandum was "Duty to Disclose Possibly False Testimony" and the memorandum pulled no punches. It went straight to prevailing case law (then and now) as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and cited two cases known as Brady and Napue. The Napue case held that, "Failure of prosecutor to correct testimony which he knows to be false violates due process, whether the falsehood bears on credibility of witness or guilt of defendant, if it is in any way relevant to the case." In Brady the court ruled that "Suppression of material evidence by the government requires a new trial, irrespective of good or bad faith."

The memorandum continued, "Prosecutor has duty to correct false testimony even if falsehood was inadvertent or caused by another government officer. New trial required if the false testimony could "in any reasonable likelihood have affected the judgement of the jury."

The Forrest and the Trees

FTW has, unfortunately, interviewed no less than six lawyers in researching this article. The problem with that is that if one talks to too many lawyers, for too long, one gets confused - very confused. Medication, meditation and/or prayer is sometimes required. Clarity vanishes. Occasionally, however, an attorney will utter statements of breathtaking logic that confirm what the layman already suspected. We want to thank Larry Barcella for giving us that kind of clarity in one instance but he may not like what we did with it.

It would be easy to pull example after example out of the 900 pages of Exhibits filed by Ed Wilson's attorney, David Adler, to show various and sundry shocking examples of Wilson's ongoing contacts with Agency personnel and Ted Shackley. But, to do that would distract from the real issues. We could laughingly try to lay out some of the pretzel-bending logic expended by an array of legal horsepower, up to and including Assistant Attorneys General of the United States. We could pull quotes, like one in notes from a meeting including Mark Richard, Lowell Jensen and a half dozen other lawyers in which someone quipped, "We're bending over backwards to fall down."

From the documents in the filing it is apparent that through November of 1983, long after Edwin Wilson had been sentenced to 17 years on the C-4 violations, every lawyer from the Justice Department who became aware of the "inaccuracy" of the Briggs affidavit kept their moth shut about it. A reading of the law and an easily understandable sense of fair play suggest that this was wrong. That many people were worried about the use of the memorandum is clear. Both Stanley Sporkin and Mark Richard can be seen, in a variety of memoranda and meetings, arguing for disclosure or some remedy. It is apparent that either their consciences or their fears of exposure were very "sensitized."

And, on close scrutiny, the remedy that was found does not sit well either. From exhibits filed by Adler on Wilson's behalf it is apparent that Assistant Attorney General Steven Trott, now a Judge on the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, gave permission to the worried lawyers to disclose some "inaccuracies" in the Briggs affidavit in an obscure paragraph in filings to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. This was long after the conviction. If the Appeals court said to do something they would, if not, they were off the hook. Adler's response on this point is clear and compelling. "The problem with the logic is, at least, twofold. The 'disclosure' was made to the appeals court, not the trial court. I don't believe the Supreme Court's prohibition on the government's knowing use of false testimony is rectified by admitting the truth to an entirely different court. The second problem is that telling the truth and admitting a lie has been told are two different statementsÉ It [DoJ's attempt to satisfy disclosure requirements] simply mentioned (in a document only a few select people had access to) that Wilson had provided 'a few services'. The trial court and, more importantly, the jury were never told."

Barcella's position is that a lot of honorable people engaged in a lot of mental effort, that may have "gotten too technical" to protect the integrity of a conviction that doesn't need to be undermined.

"While the inaccuracies in the Briggs affidavit are unfortunate," Barcella said, "they really don't go to the heart of the defense. To have an authorization defense you have got to be able to show that the act that you are charged with was authorizedÉ Wilson never even alleged that he was authorized to ship the C-4. He didn't want to admit that he had anything to do with the C-4É He never called Shackley or Clines to the stand because he knew what they would have said. That claim would have been very easy to refute.

"People can claim the CIA does weird, bizarre, strange counterproductive things. And they may be able to claim that with some good, solid basis behind it. But what kind of logic would have to be employed to assume that the CIA would authorize the shipment of 40,000 pounds, 20 tons, of C-4, to the guy that was then the biggest terrorist in the world?"

Ironically Barcella's own logic is called into question on three accounts. Once, by the very CIA witness whose testimony the prosecution refused to allow under the conditions imposed by the court - William Larson. In a deposition before the Judge's ruling, according to Adler's motion, Larson told prosecutors "Éthat the Agency might consider providing 40,000 pounds of explosives to Libya if the source who needed to provide the explosives could obtain 'great' information in return. Larson said the Agency would deal with the devil if needed."

Second, as regular FTW readers know, we have often spoken of the pattern of the U.S. secretly arming its enemies for the purposes of expanding budgets, "stimulating" the economy and ensuring election victories. Abundant documentation - irrefutable documentation - exists to indicate that the Rockefellers, Henry Ford and major American firms financed Adolph Hitler both before and during the Second World War. Fletcher Prouty, using Department of Defense Records has documented how, in 1946, we gave half the weapons intended for use by the U.S. military in the aborted invasion of Japan to Ho Chi Minh. Iraqgate and the scandal around Banco Nacional de Lavoro (BNL) and Kennametal showed us how George Bush had secretly armed Saddam Hussein before the Gulf War. Even Ted Shackley's own book, The Third Option (McGraw-Hill, 1981), suggests that arming both sides of a conflict is often the best way to control the outcome, sharpen skills and make a profit.

Third, the concept of plausible deniability is not a theoretical abstract from spy novels. It is an enshrined principle of covert operations around the world. There is a point in the food chain at which deniability by higher ups is essential to the conduct of all covert operations. Ed Wilson made millions of dollars because he was taking the risks. He knew that if Shackley or (the now deceased) Tom Clines ever took the stand, they would deny any connection to his actions. That, FTW believes, was the deal from the start. Deniability is reportedly one of Ted Shackley's favorite words.

Is it really so hard to believe? It is harder for FTW to believe that Ed Wilson had so much contact with Agency employees and they didn't know about the C-4. Is that possible when Wilson's personal assistant Douglas Schlachter was walking the halls at CIA headquarters with Clines? That would kind of make the reported $30 billion CIA budget a waste of money wouldn't it? And, as it plays right now, believing that we live in a nation governed by the rule of law doesn't make much sense either. Our favorite quote from all of the exhibits so far is not an exact quote but rather a note included with the exhibits. It was made during a meeting of lawyers held on an undetermined date after the trial. Attending the meeting were D. Lowell Jensen, Mark Richard, Stanley Sporkin, Larry Barcella,, Houston AUSA Jim Powers, CIA Attorney David Pearline, DoJ Lawyer Kim Rosenfield (who wrote the Duty to Disclose memorandum) and several other people.

Jensen, now a sitting U.S. District Court Judge in Oakland said that the premise was that DoJ didn't need to disclose because Wilson already knew the facts. As recorded in the notes Stanley Sporkin the replied, "Goes beyond thatÉ this is record affidavit, if found things in records, must be disclosed. - Not in someone's mind."

We wish that Justice was that simple.

NEXT?

In a response made public on January 18, the Department of Justice acknowledged that Ted Greenberg introduced inaccurate testimony at Wilson's trial. David Adler has told FTW that he has until February 11th to file his response to the DoJ at which time the court may grant Wilson's motion to set aside the conviction, reject it, or hold a hearing. Adler has told FTW of his intention to subpoena all of the involved attorneys and judges and put them on the stand if a hearing is granted. Adler also intends to call Ted Shackley. Former CIA Director, Admiral Stansfield Turner was also on the list of potential witnesses until he was critically injured in an airplane accident on Jan 15th.

If the hearing takes place David Adler may then have to admonish each witness of their rights against self-incrimination before asking them about their role in the submission of, and their ensuing silence about, the Briggs affidavit.

FTW will be following every development closely. We are in the process of obtaining a copy of the government's response and we will report on that next month. We have secured permission from Wilson and his lawyer for a telephone interview but, as of press time, the Federal Prison at Allenwood, Pennsylvania has not put me on the approved phone list. - We are not holding our breath. FTW has already been denied permission to interview Wilson in person.

If Edwin Wilson's conviction is vacated then a great deal more than just one man will be on trial next. And it is hard to believe that the government, after the mountains of press devoted to Wilson, could let him walk without another trial. It is also not inconceivable that the first conviction could be placed in jeopardy as well. Wilson's last conviction, 25 years for conspiracy to murder Larry Barcella and other prosecutors, remains intact but Wilson has now served 17 years. If two convictions are thrown out then he is at least eligible for a parole hearing. At 71, and with reportedly failing health, there might remain little justification for keeping him locked up in a maximum security prison.

November 23, 1981 Vol. 16 No. 21 [People]
Ex-C.I.A. Agent Edwin Wilson Talks About His Mysterious Allegiance to Libya

To the CIA, he is a rogue, an agent for no one but himself. To the FBI, he is a much-wanted fugitive from justice. But to the fanatical, outlaw regime of Libya's Col. Muammar Qaddafi, Edwin P. Wilson, 53, is a precious ally. By his own account, Wilson is nothing more than a very successful middleman in Libya's import-export trade. Yet he has also served to whet Qaddafi's appetite for military adventure by supplying airplane mechanics and pilots for the Libyan Air Force. There is mounting evidence, moreover, that his activities have been not only unsavory but unlawful as well. A four-count federal indictment handed down in Washington last year charges that Wilson and business partner Frank Terpil, another former CIA agent, supplied Qaddafi's government with explosives, in violation of a federal arms shipment statute. They are also accused of conspiring with a group of Cuban exiles to assassinate an enemy of Qaddafi in Egypt, "I am innocent of all the charges," says Wilson, but for the moment he is remaining in Libya, among friends. "Mr. Wilson is a fine man," says Libya's chief of intelligence, Abdullah Sanusi, Qaddafi's brother-in-law. "He's done nothing to hurt the U.S."

The U.S. government disagrees; the State Department has called Wilson's mission to Libya "reprehensible." One of his former business associates, Kevin Mulcahy, has charged that Wilson attempted to buy a ground-to-air Redeye missile for Libya. Mulcahy speculates that the weapon was intended to bring down a jumbo jet as an incontrovertible demonstration of terrorist might. Another of Wilson's former employees, ex-Green Beret Eugene Tafoya, is currently on trial in Colorado for shooting a Libyan dissident there; Tafoya allegedly hid out after the shooting in a house near London which belongs to Wilson. John Anthony Stubbs, a British pilot hired by Wilson to fly cargo planes in Libya's war on Chad, claims that Wilson is the supply linchpin of Qaddafi's training program for international terrorists.

Ed Wilson's background hardly suggests a traitor in the making. A farm boy from Nampa, Idaho, he graduated from the University of Portland into the Marine Corps during the Korean War. Four years later he joined the CIA. Until 1971, he says, he served as a "low-level operative," then switched to a naval intelligence team monitoring weapons movements around the world. Somehow, even before leaving government service in 1975, he was doing well enough financially to buy a 2,000-acre Virginia farm currently valued at some $9 million.

Until now Wilson has never talked at length about the shadowy years that followed. Then last month he invited free-lance journalist Peter Malatesta to spend 10 days with him in Tripoli. Malatesta is no stranger to complex men. He has been an aide to Vice-President Spiro Agnew, a business partner of former Korean lobbyist Tongsun Park and an owner of Pisces, an exclusive private club in Georgetown. He is the author of Party Politics, an examination of the social side of Washington to be published this spring by Prentice-Hall. His next project is a book about Wilson.

Malatesta found his subject's life to be a lonely one. Wilson's estranged wife and two sons live in the U.S., and, given the Islamic prohibitions against drinking and nightclubbing, his main pleasures are imported American food, novels, history books and videotaped adventure films.

The interview which follows is hardly forthcoming; Wilson's responses throughout are rigorously self-serving. Yet in his portrayal of an innocent businessman wrongly accused by disgruntled employees, Wilson does reveal himself, however unwittingly.

You have been called a traitor. How do you feel about that?

I haven't done anything to hurt the United States. I have always considered myself to be a loyal and good American. If there were to be a war between Libya and the U.S., I'd definitely fight on the United States' side. The Libyans understand and respect me for that. I don't think it's wrong to work in Libya, and I don't think that anyone should be considered to be against the United States because they work here. My import-export company is a legitimate, honest business.

But the U.S. government is clearly at odds with Colonel Qaddafi's government.

It's not my problem. I'm a businessman. I don't care to get into politics. In years past Libya and the U.S. have been friends. I'm hopeful that this again will be the case. After all, we're still buying their oil, aren't we?

How did you get involved with Libya?

I first came here with Frank Terpil, a former CIA agent who, by the way, I had never known in the agency. We met at a party in 1976, and he told me about Libya. At the time I was tired of Washington so I decided to come down here and see what I could do. I broke relations with Terpil in December '76 and I've not seen him since, except for a chance meeting in a hotel in Geneva two years ago. I found his personality was definitely on the paranoid side and that he had tendencies to make bombastic statements that were not true. I saw a potential in Libya to do business and I set out on my own. I've had nothing to do with Terpil since.

Two high-ranking CIA agents were fired in April 1977 because of their association with you and Terpil. Did your CIA connections help you in business?

I unequivocally deny that. As a matter of fact, in my business that is tantamount to losing any credibility I have, since the CIA is known to be a leaky organization, where information flows out as fast as it flows in. The last official contact I had with the agency was when I resigned in 1971. A number of my former associates have asked me for a job or to help them out or loan them money. Socially I've had some contact, but businesswise I have not.

How difficult was it for you to establish a business in Libya?

I didn't have to do a thing. Terpil already had a contract with the Libyan government to furnish timers, which were to be used with booby traps. When these timers were purchased, the State Department had no restrictions on shipment or sale of this kind of electronic equipment.

But you're accused of supplying Libya with American explosives.

I was involved only with the timers, which were perfectly legal and were to be used only for training purposes. The newspapers have grossly exaggerated the number, saying the contract called for 300,000 to 500,000. I never heard of those orders; maybe Terpil did. The actual order was for 300 to 400.

Jerome Browerwho was indicted with you, pleaded guilty and spent four months in prisonhas testified that you were also involved in the deal to supply explosives to Libya.

I don't know what Mr. Brower claims. He was contacted by Frank Terpil to provide explosives for the training projects in Libya. The Libyans gave Brower an import license; after that, it was his responsibility to clear the shipment in the United States with the proper authorities and to make any other arrangements necessary for shipping. I introduced him at his request to the people here who contract for such stuff and he was on his own from that time on.

Your former associate Kevin Mulcahy charges that you not only sold munitions to the Libyans but also tried to purchase a Redeye missile for them.

That is totally untrue. I never saw a Redeye missile and never sold one or any other arms from the United States or any equipment embargoed by the United States at any time. It is beyond me why the press will take some casual, paranoid comment from a disaffected former employee who was probably terminated for incompetence and print it as the truth.

How many jet and helicopter pilots are you providing to Libya?

We gave up the contracts on both operations retroactive to Oct. 1 because the Libyans are now quite capable of flying and maintaining their own planes. All the Britons and Americans are now gone. Over the past five years we have employed somewhere between 150 and 200 people, about half of them American.

It has been said that without your help, Libya would have been unable to undertake its invasion of Chad. How do you respond to that?

The Libyans' problems with Chad have nothing to do with me.

Are other Americans besides your recruits involved in the Libyan government?

I wouldn't know. I know very few Americans here. Most of my friends are Libyans.

Is it true that you have enlisted Green Berets to train terrorists in Libya?

First of all, let me say I wouldn't know a terrorist if I saw one. I've never seen nor heard of any kind of that activity, and I've traveled freely all over Libya. Since the Justice Department has interviewed a number of former Green Berets who have worked for me, they know I've never trained anyone to be a terrorist.

Then what takes place in the camp in Benghazi, where ex-Green Berets are training Libyans?

Benghazi is your basic Marine-like boot camp. We take Libyan drafteesraw, young, some barely teenagersand we put them through a special 40-to 50-day operations course. It consists of map reading, how to operate a radio, squad and platoon practices, bayonet drill, marksmanship, hand-to-hand combat, first aid, aerial delivery of supplies by parachute and that kind of stuff. There are four or five former Green Berets there. But let me say, I'm sick and tired of hearing about how I'm training terrorists.

Are the Libyan trainees involved with the use of explosives?

Yes, there's about 12 hours of training in basic demolition, the kind that would be used to blow up bridges, roads or trees.

What happens to these Libyans after they are trained? Do they go abroad?

After training they continue in the Libyan Army as soldiers. They go, I guess, wherever the army goes.

How would you describe the business you do here?

Well, I represent OSI-SA, an import-export business in Tripoli. I'm very active in the oil-service business providing equipment like bits, tools and spare parts. We just signed a large contract to supply military uniforms. I'm currently dealing with a South Korean construction firm specializing in international tradepetrochemicals, electronics, textiles and that sort of thing. I'm also doing business with a large Western European steel and pipe company and an Italian construction and trading company.

Is this the company that was recruiting pilots and mechanics for the Libyan Air Force?

No, that's another company which is Swiss-based. The name is SCFMO. It's owned by Middle East stockholders, who want to remain anonymous. It takes a lot of capital to operate here, so I had to have some backers.

Why do foreign companies doing business with Libya come to you as a middleman?

I have the proper staff, the telexes, the phones, and offices available in the villa. It's pretty elementaryI'm able to set up the appointments they need. I know how to get things done here, and that's what they're looking for.

Are there many other companies here in the import-export business?

No, not really. Because of nationalization, my company is one of the few that is still doing business in Libya.

What are your dealings with Qaddafi?

I have never met Colonel Qaddafi, and I have never operated at his level. I admire what he has done for his people in the way of economic progress in the last 10 years. He has bettered the standard of living of the common people, even down to the Bedouins. I think he's improved the quality of life here a great deal. On every level, whether it's agricultural, industrial, political or cultural, the Libyans are a lot better off then they were before. I've never seen a beggar here.

What is your current income?

Would any other businessman answer that question? Let me just say this: I've paid my income taxes every year, in the six figures. You know, a guy could get into real trouble if he doesn't pay his taxes. That's serious stuff. You don't mess around with the IRS. I've been lucky in my real estate deals in Virginia and I suppose that my property is worth somewhere around $9 million or so.

Frank Terpil says that you and he bribed members of the American military command in Iran to facilitate arms sales to that country. Did you?

That is absolutely untrue. I paid off nobody. I made one trip to Iran with TerpiL and he introduced me to a man named David. I heard that he was an agent for the KGB and I dropped the whole matter quickly.

You have been accused of selling sensitive computer technology to Soviet KGB agents in Iran.

Totally untrue. We have never exported high technology, nor attempted to.

How did you get involved with Eugene Tafoya, who is on trial in Colorado for shooting a Libyan dissident?

Tafoya was one of many ex-Green Berets, 75 or so, whom we hired at one time or another to provide training in Benghazi. He was only with us a couple of months and at the time there was no training going on. Tafoya didn't get along with the Libyans; he was kind of a strange character. In fact, I only talked to him once or twice in the month or so he was here. I asked him to leave. If he was contacted and hired by the Libyans to assassinate that student in Colorado, I am unaware of this activity, was not a party to it and in no way would have condoned it.

But the authorities found your business card in his wallet.

That wouldn't be unusual. Anyone who worked for the Swiss corporation probably would have my business card, which has on it my telex number and telephone numbers.

One of your pilot recruits, John Anthony Stubbs, charges that he knows for a fact that you are the arms merchant of Libya. How do you respond?

Stubbs was down here for about a month. He took one test hop in a C-130. We found out that he wasn't a qualified pilot, but maybe a copilot at best. He never flew anywhere. The Libyans put him in their copilots' school for a couple of weeks, and he flunked out of that. The guy is an out-and-out liar. He drank too much, burned his apartment and was released as a total incompetent after one month. We paid him one month's salary, which we were never reimbursed by the Libyans for, and he left.

Kevin Mulcahy gave the grand jury testimony that led to your indictments. Why would your former colleague have testified against you?

Mulcahy is really a pathetic figure, an alcoholic with mental problems. He wound up taking $4,500 in cash out of my office the night he left. Because of this, in order to protect himself from the supposed revenge that Terpil and I would take, he fed Seymour Hersh of the New York Times the most unbelievable lies, fabrications and untruths.

Mulcahy says that you met with three Cuban exiles in Geneva where you asked them to kill Umar Muhayshi, a dissident Libyan living in Egypt. Did you?

I have no idea where any discussion about the killing of Muhayshi came up. Terpil and I did meet with some Cubans in Geneva. I offered them a job to come to Libya to assist in the anti-booby trap and mine field school. They turned down the job primarily because they did not like Terpil. I don't think I should comment on it any further at this time.

If Stubbs and Mulcahy were drunks and Terpil was paranoid and Tafoya was a "strange character," as you allege, what does this say about you as a personnel recruiter?

Four out of 200 isn't bad.

Since your indictment, how many times have you been out of Libya?

I've only been out of here twice in the last couple of years. Once in 1980 to go to Malta to expand my business operations, and a couple of months ago to go to Rome for a meeting with the Justice Department and the FBI.

What happened at that meeting?

My case was discussed, but it's not appropriate for me to go into those details now. Justice has had no comment, so I won't either. But I do want to say one thing for certain, that there were no CIA agents present. I had no meeting there of any kind with the CIA, and as to any discussion about the reported plan to assassinate Colonel Qaddafi, that's more preposterous journalism. Justice knows it, the FBI knows itask 'em.

How does your family feel about your situation?

I have two fine teenage sons. In fact, one visited here last summer and wanted to stay. I made him go back and told him he had to finish college. They are both very supportive and know I haven't done anything wrong. My wife, Barbara, and I are in the midst of a divorce. It's been rough on her. She's had to put up with all kinds of hate phone calls, calling me a traitor, anti-Semitic and the like.

Do you think your life is in jeopardy?

I never think about that. As you can see, we never lock our doors here, even at night. It's never been my philosophy to look over my shoulder, politically or physically.

Will you return to the United States to stand trial?

Yes, when the climate is right for a fair trial. Right now that would be impossible. As long as there's a great deal of anti-Libyan feeling in the United States, the press is going to continue to give my situation flamboyant and distorted coverage. The Justice Department has fed the press a continual diet of half-truths and leaks; I don't know what they hope to gain. I will go back when the time is rightbut for the moment, I'm quite happy here.

Edwin Wilson was born in Idaho in 1928. The son of an unsuccessful farmer who died of cancer in 1940, Wilson managed to obtain a degree in psychology before joining the Marine Corps in 1953.

Wilson joined the Central Intelligence Agency in 1956. As a CIA agent, he spied on European unions before running shipping companies secretly owned by the agency. Over the next few years he arranged clandestine CIA arms shipments to Angola, Laos, Indonesia and the Congo.

In 1971, Wilson left the CIA to run shipping companies for a secret Navy intelligence organization called Task Force 157. This included a company based in Washington called World Marine Incorporated. Wilson used World Marine to carry out his own private business deals. In 1973 Wilson earned a $500,000 fee by delivering a spy ship to Iran under the cover of World Marine.

In 1973 Frank Nugan, an Australian lawyer, and Michael Hand, a former CIA contract operative, established the Nugan Hand Bank. Another key figure in this venture was Bernie Houghton, who was closely connected to CIA officials, Ted Shackley and Thomas G. Clines.

Nugan ran operations in Sydney whereas Hand established a branch in Hong Kong. This enabled Australian depositors to access a money-laundering facility for illegal transfers of Australian money to Hong Kong. According to Alfred W. McCoy, the "Hand-Houghton partnership led the bank's international division into new fields - drug finance, arms trading, and support work for CIA covert operations." Hand told friends "it was his ambition that Nugan Hand became banker for the CIA."

In 1974 the Nugan Hand Bank got involved in helping the CIA to take part in covert arms deals with contacts within Angola. It was at this time that Edwin Wilson became involved with the bank. Two CIA agents based in Indonesia, James Hawes and Robert Moore, called on Wilson at his World Marine offices to discuss "an African arms deal". Later, Bernie Houghton arrived from Sydney to place an order for 10 million rounds of ammunition and 3,000 weapons including machine guns. The following year Houghton asked Wilson to arrange for World Marine to purchase a high-technology spy ship. This ship was then sold to Iran.

By 1976 the Nugan-Hand Bank appeared to have become a CIA-fronted company. This is reflected in the type of people recruited to hold senior positions in the bank. For example, Rear-Admiral Earl P. Yates, the former Chief of Staff for Policy and Plans of the U.S. Pacific Command and a counter-insurgency specialist, became president of the company. Other appointments included William Colby, retired director of the CIA, General Leroy J. Manor, the former chief of staff of the U.S. Pacific Command and deputy director for counterinsurgency and special activities, General Edwin F. Black, former commander of U.S. forces in Thailand, Walter J. McDonald, retired CIA deputy director for economic research and Dale C. Holmgren, former chairman of the CIA's Civil Air Transport.

The investigative journalist, Jonathan Kwitny, became convinced that the Nugan Hand Bank had replaced the Castle Bank & Trust of Nassau, as the CIA's covert banker. Former CIA agent, Kevin P. Mulcahy later told the National Times newspaper "about the Agency's use of Nugan Hand for shifting money for various covert operations around the globe."

In February 1976, Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, the new head of the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), discovered that Wilson was involved in some dubious undercover business deals. A few months later Wilson was asked to leave the ONI. Wilson continued to run the CIA-fronted companies he had established. The largest of these was Consultants International and over the next few years amassed a fortune of over $20 million. This enabled him to buy a 2,338-acre farm in Northern Virginia, where he often entertained his close friends, Ted Shackley and Thomas G. Clines.

Much of his money was made in the arms trade. His most important customer was Moammar Gaddafi, the dictator of Libya. Wilson later claimed that it was Ted Shackley who first suggested he should go to Libya. Wilson got contracts to sell Libya army uniforms, ammunition, explosive timers and 20 tons of C-4 plastic explosives.

In 1976 Wilson recruited Raphael Quintero to kill a Libyan dissident in Egypt. Quintero selected two brothers, Rafael and Raoul Villaverde, to carry out the killing. However, the contract was later cancelled.

One of the men Wilson employed was former CIA officer Kevin P. Mulcahy. He became concerned about Wilson's illegal activities and sent a message about them to the agency. Ted Shackley, Deputy Director of Operations, was initially able to block any internal investigation of Wilson. However, in April, 1977, the Washington Post, published an article on Wilson's activities stating that he may be getting support from "current CIA employees". Stansfield Turner, director of the CIA, ordered an investigation and discovered that both Shackley and Clines had close relationships with Wilson. As a result, Turner made sure that both men's careers came to an end in the CIA.

In 1978 Thomas G. Clines left the CIA. He now joined with Raphael Quintero and Ricardo Chavez (another former CIA operative) to establish API Distributors. According to David Corn (Blond Ghost) Wilson provided Clines with "half a million dollars to get his business empire going". In 1979 Clines established International Research and Trade Limited in Bermuda. Later that year he joined forces with Hussein Salem in providing U.S. military hardware to Egypt.

After leaving the CIA in September, 1979, Ted Shackley formed his own company, Research Associates International, which specialized in providing intelligence to business. He was also given consulting work with API Distributors, the company established by Thomas G. Clines, Raphael Quintero, and Ricardo Chavez.

In 1979 a gun that Wilson arranged to be delivered to the Libyan embassy in Bonn was used to kill a political dissident. Another dissident was murdered in Colorado by one of Wilson's men.

According to Alfred W. McCoy (The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade): "Throughout 1979 the Wilson network and the Nugan Hand Bank began to build a close commercial alliance in the netherworld of national security subcontracting". Ted Shackley and Thomas G. Clines were also drawn into a relationship with the Nugan Hand Bank. Michael Hand wrote to Shackley on 27th November, 1979, suggesting a business meeting. Hand's latter also referred to Bernie Houghton, who had worked for Shackley in Vietnam.

Michael Hand probably wanted to talk about Edwin Wilson. In 1979 a Washington grand jury began gathering incriminating evidence about his illegal arms sales. To avoid arrest he moved to London. In the winter of 1979, Wilson had a meeting with Bernie Houghton and Thomas G. Clines in Switzerland in an attempt to help him out of his difficulties. This included a non-delivery of 5,000 M16 automatic rifles. The three men discussed ways of using the Nugan Hand Bank to float a $22 million loan to finance the delivery. Hand was obviously concerned that if Wilson was arrested he might begin talking about his dealings with Nugan Hand.

Michael Hand also had talks with William Colby, the former director of the CIA. It is not known what was discussed at this meeting but Colby submitted a bill to Nugan Hand Bank for $45,684 for his legal advice.

On 27th January, 1980 Frank Nugan was found dead in his car. Bernie Houghton was in Switzerland at the time and he immediately rang his branch office in Saudi Arabia and ordered the staff to leave the country. Houghton also visited Edwin Wilson's office in Geneva and left a briefcase with bank documents for safekeeping. Soon afterwards, a witness saw Thomas G. Clines going through the briefcase at Wilson's office and remove papers that referred to him and General Richard Secord.

Two days after Nugan died, Michael Hand held a meeting of Nugan Hand Bank directors. He warned them that unless they did as they were told they could "finish up with concrete shoes" and would be "liable to find their wives being delivered to them in pieces".

According to one witness, Thomas G. Clines helped Bernie Houghton escape from Australia. Michael Hand also left the country accompanied by James Oswald Spencer, a man who served with Ted Shackley in Laos. The two men traveled to America via Fiji and Vancouver. Hand then disappeared and has never been seen again.

The Australian authorities were forced to investigate the bank. They discovered that Ricardo Chavez, the former CIA operative who was co-owner of API Distributors with Thomas G. Clines and Raphael Quintero, was attempting to take control of the bank. The Corporate Affairs Commission of New South Wales came to the conclusion that Chavez was working on behalf of Clines, Quintero and Wilson.

Wilson was eventually indicted by the Department of Justice. However, he had moved to Libya and Moammar Gaddafi refused to extradite him. Wilson feared for his safety and the prosecutors knew this and in 1982 they sent Ernest Keiser to convince him that he would be safe in the Dominican Republic. Wilson flew to the Caribbean but upon arrival was arrested and flown to New York.

While awaiting trial Wilson attempted to recruit a fellow prisoner to kill Lawrence Barcella, the federal prosecutor. The prisoner instead went to the authorities and they set Wilson up with an undercover agent. The agent taped Wilson hiring him to kill the prosecutors, six witnesses and his ex-wife.

In 1984 Wilson was found not guilty of trying to hire Raphael Quintero and other Cubans to kill a Libyan dissident. However, he was found guilty of exporting guns and conspiracy to murder and was sentenced to 52 years in prison.

Wilson claimed he had been framed and claimed that he was working on behalf of the CIA. He employed David Adler, a former CIA agent, as his lawyer. Adler eventually found evidence that Wilson was indeed working for the CIA after he retired from the agency. In October 2003 a Houston federal judge, Lynn Hughes, threw out Wilson's conviction in the C-4 explosives case, ruling that the prosecutors had "deliberately deceived the court" about Wilson's continuing CIA contacts, thus "double-crossing a part-time informal government agent."

Despite the decision of Lynn Hughes, Edwin P. Wilson was not released. Eric Margolis has described him as "America's Man in the Iron Mask". Margolis has always believed Wilson innocent and spoke to him many times in prison. "I was framed by the government," Wilson told Margolis, "they want me to disappear. I know too much."

Edwin P. Wilson was released from prison in 2004 and now lives with his brother in Washington State.

WILSON EDWIN PAUL
Iran 1974-1977 Australia 1975 Nicaragua 1978-1979
Adams,J. Secret Armies. 1988 (357)
Anderson,J. Peace, War, and Politics. 1999 (314-6)
Assn. National Security Alumni. Unclassified 1992-05 (12)
Back Channels 1992-W (11)
Bainerman,J. The Crimes of a President. 1992 (75-6)
Berlet,C. Right Woos Left. 1991-12-16 (20)
Bloch,J. Fitzgerald,P. British Intelligence and Covert Action. 1984 (157)
Brewton,P. The Mafia, CIA, and George Bush. 1992 (201-2)
Brogan,P. Zarca,A. Deadly Business. 1983 (336-55)
Chasey,W. Pan Am 103: The Lockerbie Cover Up. 1995 (141-2)
Chernyavsky,V. The CIA in the Dock. 1983 (87-8)
Christic Institute. Sheehan Affidavit. 1987-01-31 (29-31, 37-41)
Christic Institute. Sheehan Affidavit. 1988-03-25
Cockburn,L. Out of Control. 1987 (96, 98, 106)
Corn,D. Blond Ghost. 1994
Covert Action Information Bulletin 1982-#16 (52-5)
Covert Action Information Bulletin 1987-#28 (4-8)
Covert Action Information Bulletin 1990-#35 (54)
Crile,G. Charlie Wilson's War. 2003 (36-9)
DeCamp,J. The Franklin Cover-up. 1994 (179)
Emerson,S. Secret Warriors. 1988 (31, 146, 217-8)
Epstein,E. Deception. 1989 (282-3)
Fonzi,G. The Last Investigation. 1993 (355-8)
Freed,D. Death in Washington. 1980 (172-4, 199)
Freney,D. Get Gough! 1985 (5, 17, 69, 73)
Goulden,J. The Death Merchant. 1985
Gritz,J. Called to Serve. 1991 (182, 301, 587-8)
Hartung,W. And Weapons for All. 1994 (180-1)
Heiner,K. Without Smoking Gun. 2004 (71-6)
Honegger,B. October Surprise. 1989 (81)
Hougan,J. Secret Agenda. 1984 (62, 120-2)
Intelligence (Paris) 2000-05-01 (23)
Intelligence/Parapolitics (Paris) 1984-06 (3)
Jensen-Stevenson,M. Stevenson,W. Kiss the Boys Goodbye. 1990 (185-6, 218, 277-82, 286-7, 290)
Kwitny,J. The Crimes of Patriots. 1987 (16, 97-105, 114-5, 123, 308-18)
Lernoux,P. In Banks We Trust. 1984 (63-4, 67, 149)
Livingstone,N. The Cult of Counterterrorism. 1990 (356-84)
Loftus,J. Aarons,M. The Secret War Against the Jews. 1994 (390-3)
Maas,P. Manhunt. 1986
Marshall,J... The Iran-Contra Connection. 1987 (16, 25, 29-30, 37-9, 41, 73, 95, 155-7, 167, 194-6, 256)
McClintock,M. Instruments of Statecraft. 1992 (439)
McCoy,A. The Politics of Heroin. 1991 (466-7, 471-3, 477)
Minnick,W. Spies and Provocateurs. 1992 (239-41)
Mother Jones 1984-03 (20)
Nation 1999-10-04 (20-4)
Naylor,R.T. Hot Money and the Politics of Debt. 1994 (313, 402-4)
Parade Magazine 1983-09-18 (22, 24)
Parapolitics/USA 1981-10-31 (2-4, 49-50)
Parapolitics/USA 1982-03-31 (5-6, 26)
Parapolitics/USA 1983-03-01 (19, 25-6, 28, 30-1)
Parapolitics/USA 1983-06-01 (14-5, 20)
Payne,R. Dobson,C. Who's Who in Espionage. 1984 (178)
Prados,J. Presidents' Secret Wars. 1988 (369-70)
Riebling,M. Wedge. 1994 (160)
Rodriguez,F. Weisman,J. Shadow Warrior. 1989 (207-8, 215, 238, 248)
San Jose Mercury News 1986-07-18 (14A)
Schlosser,E. Reefer Madness. 2003 (149)
Scott,P.D. Deep Politics. 1993 (237)
Silverstein,K. Washington on $10 Million a Day. 1998 (200)
Sklar,H. Washington's War on Nicaragua. 1988 (22, 253-6)
Spotlight Newspaper 1987-04-06 (3)
Stich,R. Defrauding America. 1994 (303-4, 459)
Stich,R. Drugging America: A Trojan Horse. 1999 (5, 11-4, 18-9)
Stich,R. Russell,T.C. Disavow: A CIA Saga of Betrayal. 1995 (94)
Summers,A. Conspiracy. 1989 (517)
Tarpley,W.G. Chaitkin,A. George Bush. 1992 (317-8, 383)
Thomas,K. Keith,J. The Octopus. 1996 (68, 74, 80, 82, 93)
Trento,J. Prelude to Terror. 2005
Trento,J. The Secret History of the CIA. 2001 (220, 344-5, 437, 497)
Trento,S. The Power House. 1992 (95-97, 101-2, 104-9, 112-3, 249-51)
Turner,S. Secrecy and Democracy. 1985 (55, 183)
Vankin,J. Whalen,J. The 60 Greatest Conspiracies. 1998 (126-7, 161, 270)
Village Voice 1987-06-23 (31-2)
Wall Street Journal 1982-08-24 (22)
Washington Post Book World 1986-04-27 (7)
Washington Post 1982-11-21 (B1, 5)
Washington Post 2000-01-20 (A21)

I think there should be a review of how exactly this "asymmetrical" war came about? There's serious question of the legality of this and there has been no review to see whether or not the war was based on behind the scenes CIA manipulation in order to incur a "surprise" democratic movement. There's has been zero legal review to see if this war was illegally manipulated as part of greater war actions in the region for Israeli and US interests.

What I can't understand is how those other arab countries would jump on board so quickly with what is a movement that works against their interests? Is it like a mafia-type thing where they sell out another don in order to gain advantage for themselves? Is the US promising rewards for backing their attack? And how, after being called "irrelevant" by the US, is the UN jumping-in on the side of the violators again? I don't get it? Who runs the UN? This kind of massive one-sided attack is exactly what the UN was formed to prevent.

There's been zero review of whether or not this was a CIA-instigated and armed "revolution" as part of a regional campaign known as the "War On Terror," its more accurate name being the colonially-illegal "Project For A New American Century" fascist movement.

There's no doubt that how CIA interprets "asymmetrical" is their being able to get away with this dirty business. What they mean by "asymmetrical" is CIA and the State Department being able to get away with crimes against the American people and their democracy.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (March 24, 2011) -- Congressman Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) today wrote to President Obama that it was improper to commit the United States to a military intervention in Libya without prior Congressional approval, clear objectives and questioned the criteria used for intervention. Kucinich also informed President Obama of his intent to introduce a bipartisan amendment that would cut off all funds for the U.S.'s role in Libyato the next funding measure to be considered.



The letter was sent immediately upon the President's return to the United States from a trip to South America that began after the President announced U.S. participation in military intervention in Libya without seeking prior Congressional approval for the use of military force as required by the Constitution.



Kucinich's amendment to defund U.S. military intervention in Libya is cosponsored by Representatives Walter Jones (R-NC), Pete Stark (D-CA) and Ron Paul (R-TX).



See a signed copy of the letter here. The full text of the letter follows.

March 24, 2011

The Honorable Barack Obama

President of the United States

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write in response to your letter of March 21, 2011 to the House of Representatives, regarding the commitment of U.S. Armed Forces to Libya. As the United States and its allies continue military intervention in Libya, I am deeply concerned about the White House's neglect of its responsibility to seek Congress' authorization to use military force prior to the commitment of U.S. armed forces. I am equally concerned about the potential for further instability in the region as a result of U.S-led international intervention in Libya.

You stated in your letter that U.S. military forces have been committed "to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners" at your direction. While testifying before the House Appropriations Committee earlier this month, Defense Secretary Robert Gates acknowledged that imposing a no-fly zone over Libya was an act of war, stating that "A no-fly zone begins with an attack on Libya to destroy the air defenses."[1] The authority you claim in your letter to commit an act of war in the form of enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya is inconsistent with the Constitution, which, as you know, is defined in Article 1, Section 8 to give Congress the sole power to declare war. It is also in sharp variance to your own statement in a December 2007 interview in which you affirmed that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."[2]

Not only were those preconditions not present, but Congress was available to consider a presidential request for authorization to use military force, had you chosen to submit one. It is deeply troubling that in the weeks leading up to the passage of the U.N. resolution, you neglected to come to Congress for authorization to use military force. Your efforts to gather support from the U.N., The Arab League, and other international allies prior to launching the strikes is well-known. Your neglect of seeking support from the U.S. Congress was not proper and contrary to your own publically stated understanding of the Constitution.

My concerns about a war in Libya are not limited to questions of constitutionality, but extend to your criteria for intervention. If your criteria for military intervention in another country is instability and government sponsored-violence, as you suggest in your letter, we will stretch far too thin our already overcommitted military. We will also dramatically increase our military presence in the Middle East. Anti-Americanism will rise, accompanied by popular resentment toward a foreign occupier. If the criteria are more localized, and you will commit our Armed Forces to military intervention only in certain cases of government-sponsored violence against a popular uprising, then we will have an inconsistent foreign policy that will also elicit anti-American sentiment.

During a press conference at the Pentagon earlier this month, Secretary Gates warned of the negative implications of U.S. military involvement in Libya: "All of the options beyond humanitarian assistance and evacuations are complex. ... If we move additional assets, what are the consequences of that for Afghanistan? For the Persian Gulf?...We also have to think about, frankly, the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East."[3] The implications for our own national security should not have been ignored and cannot continue to be ignored.

I am also gravely concerned about the objectives of the intervention. You stated in your letter that the goal of intervention is "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya." I wholeheartedly support the Libyan people's desire for democratic reform and representation and agree that the United States has a role in providing humanitarian assistance to Libyan civilians. However, the idea that military intervention for humanitarian purposes in Libya would lead to greater stability in the region runs counter to the track record of recent U.S. - led military interventions in the Middle East and threatens to commit the U.S. to another quagmire in the region. American military efforts to depose despotic and inhumane leaders of Middle Eastern countries have turned out to be much larger undertakings than Congress was led to expect. President Muammar Gaddafi can reasonably be expected to hang on until the bitter end in a protracted battle.

The United States has spent trillions of dollars on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan thus far, with both wars having served to undermine our national and economic security. The war in Libya has reportedly cost well over $100 million to date, at a time when Congress is forced to decide between cutting funds for keeping our seniors warm in the winters, helping low-income pregnant and nursing women access basic nutrition, and helping struggling middle class workers stay in their homes. The costs are likely to mount, with the costs to operate F-15s and F-16s used by the U.S. to conduct this operation at approximately $100,000 per hour, including maintenance and fuel costs. The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments states that the U.S. costs could "easily pass the $1 billion mark…regardless of how well things go," and put the costs of the operation in Libya anywhere from $30 million to $100 million per week.[4]

I believe these missteps so far seriously compromise the course of military intervention you have initiated. The only way I can see to correct them is to stop U.S. participation in the war entirely. As such, I intend to offer an amendment to the next general funding measure to be considered by Congress to defund U.S. military intervention in Libya. Congress must have the latitude to make an informed decision under circumstances in which Congress's predictable desire to support the troops does not skew the debate on the war's legitimacy.

Sincerely,

Dennis J. Kucinich

Member of Congress



[1] Sanger, David E. and Shanker, Tom. (2011, March 2). "Gates Warns of Risks of No-Fly Zone." The New York Times, online. Accessible: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/...ted=1&_r=1.

[2] Savage, Charlie. (2007, December 20). "Barack Obama's Q&A." The Boston Globe, online. Accessible: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008...A/ObamaQA/.

[3] (2011, March 2). "Gates: Libyan no-fly zone would require attack." CBS news.com. Accessible: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/0...8352.shtml.

[4] Scully, Megan. (2011, March 23). "Costs of Libya Operation Already Piling Up." The National Journal, online. Accessible: http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecur...p-20110321.