For The Record  

FTR #556 Update on 9/11 and Related Matters

Recorded June 11, 2006
Lis­ten:
MP3 Side 1 | Side 2
REALAUDIO

This pro­gram sup­ple­ments pre­vi­ous pro­grams about the 9/11 inves­ti­ga­tions. Of pri­mary sig­nif­i­cance is the fail­ure of the United States to pro­vide Swiss author­i­ties with infor­ma­tion about the A.Q. Khan nuclear smug­gling net­work, as well as the fail­ure of the inter­na­tional com­mu­nity to suc­cess­fully inter­dict the Mus­lim Brotherhood’s net­work of off­shore companies—companies appar­ently involved in ter­ror­ist financ­ing. One of the pos­si­ble rea­sons for the fail­ure of the U.S. to pro­vide the Swiss author­i­ties with infor­ma­tion about the Khan net­work may be the fact that the Safari Club—an “out­sourced” U.S. intel­li­gence net­work financed by the Saudis—helped pro­vide the net­work with some of its hard­ware and much of its fund­ing. Thus, the U.S. is impli­cated in the A.Q. Khan network’s oper­a­tions! The pro­gram also notes that the com­plex net­work of off­shore com­pa­nies set up by the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood has gone largely untouched, due to a vari­ety of fac­tors. (As was the case with the A.Q. Khan net­work, the United States failed to pro­vide the Swiss author­i­ties with crit­i­cal infor­ma­tion nec­es­sary to pros­e­cute Youssef Nada and the Bank Al Taqwa. That infor­ma­tion is reviewed in this program.)

Pro­gram High­lights Include: Review of the strange death of Ali bin Mus­salim (who main­tained the Bank Al Taqwa account used to fund Al Qaeda); bin Mussalim’s crim­i­nal net­work­ing with the Hunt fam­ily of Texas; the inter­na­tional fas­cist net­work­ing engaged in by bin Mus­salim asso­ciate Nel­son Bunker Hunt.

1. The pro­gram begins with analy­sis of the United States’ fail­ure to pro­vide Swiss author­i­ties with crit­i­cal infor­ma­tion for pros­e­cu­tion of par­tic­i­pants in the A.Q. Khan nuclear smug­gling ring. As will be seen below, a pos­si­ble rea­son for that is the fact that the Safari Club is impli­cated in the gen­e­sis of the A.Q. Khan smug­gling ring and the Islamic bomb. The Safari Club was (is?) a Saudi-financed out­sourc­ing of key U.S. intel­li­gence func­tions dur­ing the 1970’s and 1980’s. Evi­dence sug­gests that the polit­i­cal and national secu­rity rela­tion­ships devel­oped under the aus­pices of the Safari Club have con­tin­ued in the years since it was formed. “Two years after the United States helped dis­rupt a noto­ri­ous nuclear smug­gling ring, the Bush admin­is­tra­tion has hob­bled a Swiss effort to pros­e­cute three of the alleged lead­ers by fail­ing to share crit­i­cal infor­ma­tion, an Amer­i­can nuclear expert and Swiss law enforce­ment offi­cials said yes­ter­day. Switzerland’s fed­eral pros­e­cu­tor made at least four sep­a­rate appeals for U.S. help over the past year, ask­ing for access to doc­u­ments and other evi­dence linked to the nuclear black mar­ket run by the Pak­istani sci­en­tist Abdul Qadeer Khan. In that time, the Swiss have received no assis­tance, or even a reply, a spokesman for the pros­e­cu­tor said. ‘Swiss author­i­ties are ask­ing for addi­tional assis­tance from U.S. author­i­ties, but we haven’t got­ten an answer so far,’ Mark Wied­mer, press sec­re­tary for the Swiss attor­ney general’s office, said in response to a reporter’s inquiry. ‘We are con­fi­dent the Amer­i­can author­i­ties will pro­vide the infor­ma­tion we need.’”
(“U.S. Silence Imped­ing Swiss in Nuclear Case Expert Says Calls Have Been Ignored” by Joby War­rick; <em “>Wash­ing­ton Post; 5/26/2006; p. A16)

2. “The appeals were directed to the Jus­tice Depart­ment, which has a bilat­eral agree­ment with Switzer­land on shar­ing infor­ma­tion in inter­na­tional crim­i­nal cases, and to the State Department’s under­sec­re­tary for arms con­trol and inter­na­tional secu­rity, accord­ing to offi­cials knowl­edge­able about the requests. Calls to both agen­cies yes­ter­day were not returned. The prob­lem was brought to light yes­ter­day by a U.S. weapons expert who is advis­ing Swiss pros­e­cu­tors on the tech­ni­cal aspects of the Khan case. In tes­ti­mony before a sub­com­mit­tee of the House Inter­na­tional Rela­tions Com­mit­tee, David Albright said the U.S. gov­ern­ment had ‘ignored mul­ti­ple requests for coop­er­a­tion’ in pros­e­cut­ing mem­bers of the Khan net­work. ‘The pros­e­cu­tors have not received a reply, or even a con­fir­ma­tion that the U.S. gov­ern­ment received the requests,’ Albright, a nuclear expert and pres­i­dent of the Insti­tute for Sci­ence and Inter­na­tional Secu­rity, told the panel. He said the lack of assis­tance ‘need­lessly com­pli­cates’ an inves­ti­ga­tion of great impor­tance to both coun­tries.” (Idem.)

3. “Swiss offi­cials are seek­ing to bring charges against three busi­ness­men who allegedly played piv­otal roles in Khan’s smug­gling scheme. Swiss author­i­ties have arrested Friedrich Tin­ner, a Swiss mechan­i­cal engi­neer, and his two sons, Urs and Marco, who are sus­pected of sup­ply­ing the net­work with tech­nol­ogy and equip­ment used in enrich­ing ura­nium. Urs Tin­ner is also sus­pected of help­ing Khan set up a secret Malaysian fac­tory that made thou­sands of com­po­nents for gas cen­trifuges, machines used in ura­nium enrich­ment. For­mal charges have not yet been brought against them. Some of the com­po­nents were en route to Libya by ship in Decem­ber 2003 when they were inter­cepted by Ger­man and Ital­ian offi­cials in a raid that brought the smug­gling ring to light. The United States, which pro­vided key intel­li­gence that led to the inter­cept, her­alded the breakup of the Khan net­work as a major blow against nuclear pro­lif­er­a­tion. In July 2004, Pres­i­dent Bush viewed some of the com­po­nents sup­plied by the Tin­ners dur­ing a visit to the Energy Department’s Oak Ridge National Lab­o­ra­tory in east­ern Ten­nessee. Bush called the Khan net­work ‘one of the most dan­ger­ous sources of pro­lif­er­a­tion in the world’ and attrib­uted the suc­cess­ful breakup to the efforts of ‘allies, work­ing together.’ Albright, in his tes­ti­mony to the sub­com­mit­tee on inter­na­tional ter­ror­ism and non­pro­lif­er­a­tion, said, ‘I find this lack of coop­er­a­tion frankly embar­rass­ing to the United States and to those of us who believe that the United States should take the lead in bring­ing mem­bers of the Khan net­work to jus­tice for arm­ing our ene­mies with nuclear weapons.’” (Idem.)

4. Next, the pro­gram reviews some of the infor­ma­tion about the Safari Club and the A.Q. Khan net­work. This infor­ma­tion was orig­i­nally pre­sented in FTR#524. Under­writ­ten by Saudi Ara­bia, the Safari Club entailed the out­sourc­ing of U.S. intel­li­gence oper­a­tions to the Saudis and other coun­tries. It is in the con­text of the Safari Club that the Saudi-funded Islamic Devel­op­ment Bank under­took much of the financ­ing of the A.Q. Khan net­work and its devel­op­ment of the Islamic bomb. For more about the A.Q. Khan net­work, use the search func­tion. “The same lead­er­ship that pro­mul­gated the Safari Club—the Saudi royals—also strongly funded and sup­ported the Islamic Devel­op­ment Bank. Begun in 1973, the IDB now has 55 mem­ber states, with Saudi Ara­bia dom­i­nat­ing, with 27.33 per­cent of the bank’s fund­ing. As a com­par­i­son, Egypt con­tributes 9.48% and Pak­istan just 3.41% of the bank’s total cap­i­tal. It was through the bank’s sci­en­tific and eco­nomic devel­op­ment efforts that huge amounts were fun­neled into Pak­istan, which ended up in the hands of A.Q. Khan and his now-infamous nuclear bomb-building syn­di­cate.”
(Pre­lude to Ter­ror; by Joseph Trento; Copy­right 2005 by Joseph J. Trento; Car­roll & Graf [HC]; ISBN 0–7867-1464–6; p. 313.)

5. U.S. involve­ment with the A.Q. Khan network’s devel­op­ment of the Islamic bomb was a quid pro quo for Pak­istani coop­er­a­tion with the covert war against the Sovi­ets in Afghanistan—the same war that spawned Osama bin Laden. “The effort that began prior to the Soviet inva­sion of Afghanistan—and that Pres­i­dent Carter’s National Secu­rity Adviser warned was a seri­ous effort to build the first Islamic bomb—was delib­er­ately ignored by Carter in order to secure Saudi and Pak­istani coop­er­a­tion for the anti-Soviet effort in Afghanistan. Like almost every­thing about the anti-Soviet effort, the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion expanded on it; and the CIA directly assisted the Pak­istani nuclear effort by allow­ing Pak­istani nation­als to pro­cure hard­ware for the pro­gram in vio­la­tion of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.” (Idem.)

6. Out of the enor­mous amounts of money the Saudis and the Safari Club chan­neled to the Afghan mujahideen sup­port effort, the Pak­ista­nis diverted a large sum in order to under­write the cost of their nuclear net­work. “What many peo­ple do not know was that the Safari Club had made a deal with Pak­istan at the expense of the Afghan peo­ple. The Safari Club was run by the Saudis. It was a club to serve their pur­poses through the CIA. Shack­ley and Wil­son were not mem­bers; only nations could belong. Shack­ley and Wil­son were men who served the club in exchange for power, influ­ence, and money. Pak­istani Intel­li­gence would han­dle all the money going to facil­i­tate the proxy war against the Sovi­ets. That meant that hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars from the United States and Saudi Ara­bia were being run through Pak­istan with no account­abil­ity. ‘Unfor­tu­nately,’ said Robert Crow­ley, ‘the Pak­ista­nis knew exactly where their cut of the money was to go.’ Where the money went was into an Islamic nuclear-weapons pro­gram sup­ported by Saudi Ara­bia and accepted by the United States.” (Ibid.; p. 314.)

7. Despite U.S. claims to the con­trary, this coun­try did not inter­dict the A.Q. Khan net­work. On the con­trary, the U.S. blocked British attempts at inter­dict­ing A.Q. Khan’s oper­a­tions. “Dur­ing the early 1990’s, British Cus­toms began look­ing closely at the United States—Pakistan nuclear net­work. One of their top agents was an Arabic-speaking Mus­lim who trav­eled the world track­ing down A.Q. Khan’s net­work. The British soon learned that the United States had no inter­est in shut­ting down the net­work, which had been oper­at­ing for years. The Mus­lim cus­toms agent, whose iden­tity must be pro­tected for his own safety, was actu­ally con­fronted by Khan in Dubai, where the agent had traced a num­ber of Khan’s front com­pa­nies. The agent tes­ti­fied in a trial involv­ing asso­ciates of Khan’s that the father of the Pak­istani bomb con­fronted the Mus­lim cus­toms agent and called him ‘a trai­tor to Mus­lim peo­ple’ for uncov­er­ing the nuclear net­work that was sup­ply­ing weapons equip­ment to Libya, Iran, Malaysia, and North Korea. ‘A top French Intel­li­gence offi­cial, who asked that his name be with­held from pub­li­ca­tion, described the U.S.—Pakistani cover-up of the Khan net­work as hav­ing ‘an impor­tant prece­dent. Just as the U.S. allowed Israel to develop nuclear weapons, under pres­sure from the Saudis, the U.S. allowed Pak­istan to be Saudi Arabia’s proxy as the first Islamic nuclear state. The Saudis put up the cash and have clean hands as Pak­istan builds the bomb for its sup­posed defense against India over Kash­mir . . . but my coun­try and the British received no coop­er­a­tion start­ing in the 1980’s when we dis­cov­ered traces of Khan’s net­work. The U.S. did not want to dis­cuss it.’’” (Ibid.; pp. 314–315.)

8. The U.S. actu­ally shipped some of the hard­ware to A.Q. Khan’s oper­a­tion! “A senior source in the British gov­ern­ment, who asks not to be named, con­firms that Khan ran the net­work and that parts for the nuclear-weapons pro­gram came from the United States. Khan’s daugh­ter, attend­ing school in Eng­land, was being tutored, and at the ends of faxes deal­ing with logis­tics for her edu­ca­tion, Khan would some­times write, in his own hand, items he needed for the nuclear pro­gram.’ (Ibid.; p. 315.)

9. Next, the pro­gram details some of the his­tory and back­ground of the Pak­istani nuclear effort: “Pakistan’s quest for nuclear weapons had begun some fif­teen years ear­lier. Shortly after tak­ing office in 1972, Pak­istani Prime Min­is­ter Zul­fiker Ali Bhutto expressed his deter­mi­na­tion to develop a nuclear capa­bil­ity. His pur­pose was two fold: to off­set the inher­ent threat posed by Pakistan’s much larger neigh­bor and avowed enemy, India; and to make his coun­try a leader of the Islamic world. After India det­o­nated its first atomic weapon on the Pak­istani bor­der in 1974, Bhutto pushed his nuclear pro­gram into high gear. To lead the effort, he tapped Abdul Qadeer Khan, an accom­plished met­al­lur­gist and busi­ness­man with a strong desire for wealth. To finance his ambi­tious pro­gram, Bhutto turned to his country’s oil-rich ally, Saudi Ara­bia, and to Libya. China also pledged assis­tance. By 1976, when George Bush served as CIA Direc­tor, U.S. intel­li­gence esti­mates reported, in a secret CIA report on Pak­istan, that Pak­istan was engaged in ‘a crash pro­gram to develop nuclear weapons.” (Idem.)

10. As men­tioned above, the U.S. ‘signed on’ with the Pak­istani nuke pro­gram after the start of the Soviet inva­sion of Afghanistan. “In 1979, while await­ing exe­cu­tion fol­low­ing his over­throw, Bhutto wrote in his mem­oirs that his goal as prime min­is­ter had been to put the ‘Islamic Civ­i­liza­tion’ on an even foot­ing with ‘Chris­t­ian, Jew­ish and Hindu Civ­i­liza­tions’ by cre­at­ing a ‘full nuclear capa­bil­ity’ for the Islamic world. The man who over­threw Bhutto, Gen­eral Muham­mad Zia ul Haq, car­ried on that effort. In April 1979, when Pres­i­dent Zia refused to halt work on the ‘Islamic Bomb,’ Pres­i­dent Jimmy Carter cut off Amer­i­can eco­nomic and mil­i­tary aid to Pak­istan. Just eight months later, how­ever, fol­low­ing the Soviet Union’s inva­sion of Afghanistan, Carter struck the ulti­mate Faus­t­ian bar­gain in order to win Zia’s approval for using Pak­istan as a base of oper­a­tions for the mujahideen. Zia’s for­tunes fur­ther improved fol­low­ing the 1980 elec­tion of Ronald Rea­gan and George H.W. Bush.” (Ibid.; pp. 315–316.)

11. “With the covert U.S. war in Afghanistan inten­si­fy­ing, the Pak­istani dic­ta­tor gained sig­nif­i­cant advan­tage and used it. In addi­tion to win­ning large eco­nomic and military-aid pack­ages for his coun­try, he extracted a promise from the Reagan-Bush admin­is­tra­tion that there would be no U.S. inter­fer­ence in Pakistan’s ‘inter­nal affairs.’ That meant no com­plaints about Zia’s dic­ta­to­r­ial rule and no obstruc­tion of his efforts to build an Islamic Bomb. To keep up appear­ances, Zia pub­licly main­tained that he was not devel­op­ing nuclear weapons. How­ever, in 1983, a secret State Depart­ment brief­ing memo revealed that there was ‘unam­bigu­ous evi­dence’ that Pak­istan was ‘actively pur­su­ing a nuclear weapons devel­op­ment pro­gram’ and that China was pro­vid­ing tech­no­log­i­cal assis­tance. At the time, U.S. law pro­hib­ited pro­vid­ing assis­tance to any coun­try that was import­ing cer­tain nuclear-weapons tech­nol­ogy. The Reagan-Bush admin­is­tra­tion sim­ply ignored the leg­is­la­tion, argu­ing that cut­ting off aid to Pak­istan would harm U.S. national inter­ests.” (Ibid.; p. 316.)

12. Amer­i­can com­plic­ity with the pro­gram was assisted by Pak­istani pres­i­dent Zia’s equiv­o­ca­tion about the goals of their nuclear pro­gram, which he main­tained were peace­ful. “Zia con­tin­ued to deceive the United States about his nuclear-weapons ambi­tions. In the mid-1980’s, he flatly told the U.S. Ambas­sador to the United Nations, Ver­non Wal­ters, that Pak­istan was not build­ing a bomb. When senior State Depart­ment offi­cials later con­fronted him about the mis­rep­re­sen­ta­tion, Zia told them, ‘It is per­mis­si­ble to lie for Islam.’ He even­tu­ally gave up the pre­tense, telling Time mag­a­zine in 1987 that ‘Pak­istan has the capa­bil­ity of build­ing the bomb.’’ (Ibid.; p. 317.)

13. “By 1985, the Saudi royal fam­ily had suc­ceeded in draw­ing the United States into an Islamic morass. Over the years, the Wah­habi sect, a rad­i­cal form of anti-Western Islam, had increas­ingly caused the high-living royal fam­ily polit­i­cal prob­lems at home. To deal with this, the royal fam­ily gave the Wah­habi lead­ers free rein and paid lip ser­vice to their dia­tribes against the West and Israel. But after the fall of the Pea­cock Throne in Iran, reli­gious divi­sions sur­faced within the royal fam­ily, con­tribut­ing to a schiz­o­phre­nia in Saudi Arabia’s for­eign pol­icy: with one hand the Saudis sup­ported the sec­u­lar Sad­dam Hus­sein against the Islamic regime in Iran, and with the other they dis­patched Osama bin Laden and oth­ers as mem­bers of Saudi Intel­li­gence to work with the most rad­i­cal Islamic ele­ments fight­ing to secure con­trol of Afghanistan. The anti-Communist Reagan-Bush pol­icy mak­ers focused only on the goal of weak­en­ing the Soviet Union, ignor­ing the threat of rad­i­cal Islam.” (Idem.)

14. The Pak­istani nuclear effort was sub­si­dized through the BCCI—a vehi­cle for much of the covert oper­at­ing of the 1980s. Cur­rent FBI direc­tor Robert Mueller led the offi­cial ‘inves­ti­ga­tion’ into BCCI, and cov­ered up much of what was there. “The efforts by the Saudis, Rea­gan, Casey, and Bush to desta­bi­lize the Soviet Union through the war in Afghanistan car­ried a huge price in terms of both money and the num­ber of Afghan lives lost. Hun­dreds of mil­lions of dol­lars poured into Pak­istani Intel­li­gence from the United States, with almost no con­trol on how the funds were spent. The same BCCI bank accounts being used to fund the Afghan resis­tance were also used to fund the Pak­istani nuclear-bomb pro­gram, accord­ing to a Sen­ate report on BCCI.” (Idem.)

15. “The Reagan-Bush pol­icy vio­lated both Amer­i­can law and inter­na­tional non­pro­lif­er­a­tion treaties. But this type of vio­la­tion was not unprece­dented: the United States had allowed covert aid to Israel to help with their nuclear-weapons pro­gram in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s. In 1964, Lyn­don John­son had given James Angle­ton per­mis­sion to assist Israel in fur­ther devel­op­ing its nuclear-weapons pro­gram. Now the Rea­gan admin­is­tra­tion was lev­el­ing the play­ing field. The Saudis claimed that Israel had directly aided India in devel­op­ing its pro­gram and had thus cre­ated a dan­ger­ous imbal­ance in the region. Allow­ing Pak­istan to develop a weapon, but not to deploy it, seemed like a work­able com­pro­mise and, the Saudis argued, the only solu­tion. The 1979 memo from Zbig­niew Brzezin­ski to Pres­i­dent Carter—had warned that the price of lur­ing the Sovi­ets might include aban­don­ing efforts to stop nuclear pro­lif­er­a­tion in Pak­istan. Just six years later, the Reagan-Bush team played a huge role in mak­ing the first Islamic nuclear weapon pos­si­ble.” (Ibid.; pp. 317–318.)

16. CIA Soviet ana­lyst Melvin Good­man was among those few Amer­i­can intel­li­gence ana­lysts who noted that we were back­ing the wrong Islamic groups in Afghanistan. Arms dealer Sarkis Soghan­lian (deeply involved with the Bush-Reagan-Safari Club clan­des­tine oper­a­tions of the 1980’s) main­tains that the A.Q. Khan net­work was at all times directed by the Saudis. “By the mid-1980’s, so much money was flow­ing through the Pak­istani ISI that the CIA did not have a han­dle on where it was going, accord­ing to Melvin Good­man, a for­mer CIA ana­lyst on the Soviet Union. ‘They were fund­ing the wrong Islamic groups . . . ‚’ said Good­man, ‘and had lit­tle idea where the money was going or how it was being spent.’ Sarkis Soghana­lian, who prof­ited from pro­vid­ing arms for the secret-aid pro­gram, put it bluntly: ‘As in Iraq, the U.S. did not want to get its hands dirty. So the Saudis’ money and the U.S. money was han­dled by ISI. I can tell you that more than three quar­ters of the money was skimmed off the top. What went to buy weapons for the Afghan fight­ers was peanuts.’ Accord­ing to Soghana­lian, the funds were first laun­dered through var­i­ous BCCI accounts before being dis­bursed to ISI and into an elab­o­rate net­work run by A.Q. Khan. ‘Khan’s net­work was con­trolled by the Saudis, not Khan and not Pak­istan,’ Soghana­lian said. [Empha­sis added.] ‘the Saudis were in on every major deal includ­ing Iran, Libya, North Korea, and Malaysia.’” (Ibid.; p. 318.)

17. Next, the pro­gram revis­its the ter­ror­ist financ­ing struc­ture of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and its pri­mary finan­cial organ—the Bank Al Taqwa. “Almost from the incep­tion of the mod­ern Islamic bank­ing struc­ture (early 1980s), the inter­na­tional Mus­lim Broth­er­hood set up a par­al­lel and far-flung off­shore struc­ture that has become an inte­gral part of its abil­ity to hide and move money around the world. This net­work is lit­tle under­stood and has, so far, gar­nered lit­tle atten­tion from the intel­li­gence and law enforce­ment com­mu­ni­ties track­ing ter­ror­ist finan­cial struc­tures. The fun­da­men­tal premise of the Broth­er­hood in set­ting up this struc­ture was that it is nec­es­sary to build a clan­des­tine struc­ture that was hid­den from non-Muslims and even Mus­lims who do not share the Brotherhood’s fun­da­men­tal objec­tive of recre­at­ing the Islamic caliphate and spread­ing Islam, by force and per­sua­sion, across the globe.”
(“The Lit­tle Explored Off­shore Empire of the Inter­na­tional Mus­lim Broth­er­hood” by Dou­glas Farah; 4/18/2006.)

18. “To this end, the Brotherhood’s strat­egy, includ­ing the con­struc­tion of its finan­cial net­work, is built on the pil­lars of ‘clan­des­tin­ity, duplic­ity, exclu­sion, vio­lence, prag­ma­tism and oppor­tunism.’ Among the lead­ers of the Brotherhood’s finan­cial efforts, based on early Broth­er­hood doc­u­ments and pub­lic records, are Ibrahim Kamel a founder of Dar al Maal al Islami Bank (DMI ) and its off­shore struc­ture in Nas­sau, Bahamas; Yousef Nada, Ghalib Him­mat and Yusuf al-Qaradawi and the Bank al Taqwa struc­ture, in Nas­sau; and Idriss Nasred­din, with Akida Bank Inter­na­tional in Nas­sau. Map­ping the net­work of bank, insur­ance (tako­fol) com­pa­nies and off­shore cor­po­ra­tions — which are often used as cov­ers to open bank accounts and move money in difficult-to-trace paths pro­tected by bank secrecy laws — should be the focus of far more atten­tion because the net­work pro­vides a mech­a­nism for fund­ing the Brotherhood’s licit and illicit activ­i­ties around the globe.” (Idem.)

19. The dis­cus­sion high­lights the role of the Broth­er­hood in gen­er­at­ing Islamist ter­ror­ism. “This is of fun­da­men­tal impor­tance because the Broth­er­hood has played a cen­tral role in ‘pro­vid­ing both the ide­o­log­i­cal and tech­ni­cal capac­i­ties for sup­port­ing ter­ror­ist finance on a global basis… the Broth­er­hood has spread both the ide­ol­ogy of mil­i­tant pan-Islamicism and become the spine upon which the fund­ing oper­a­tions for mil­i­tant pan-Islamicism was built, tak­ing funds largely gen­er­ated from wealthy Gulf state elites and dis­trib­ut­ing them for ter­ror­ist edu­ca­tion, recruit­ment and oper­a­tions widely dis­persed through­out the world, espe­cially in areas where Mus­lims hoped to dis­place non-Muslim or sec­u­lar gov­ern­ments.’ Almost every major Islamist group can trace its roots to the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, founded in 1928 by the Has­san al-Banna, a pan-Islamicist who opposed the sec­u­lar ten­den­cies in Islamic nations. Hamas is a direct off­shoot of the Broth­er­hood. Has­san al-Turabi, who offered sanc­tu­ary in Sudan to Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda allies, is a leader of the Broth­er­hood. He also sat on the boards of sev­eral of the most impor­tant Islamic finan­cial insti­tu­tions, such as DMI. Bin Laden’s men­tor Abdul­lah Azzam was a stal­wart of the Jor­dan­ian Mus­lim Broth­er­hood. Ayman Zawahiri, al Qaeda’s chief strate­gist, was arrested at age 15 in Egypt for belong­ing to the Broth­er­hood. Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Ayman al-Zawahiri, ‘Blind Sheikh’ Omar Abdul-Rahman, and chief 9–11 hijacker Mohamed Atta, were mem­bers of the Broth­er­hood.” (Idem.)

20. In the pas­sage that fol­lows, for­mer coun­tert­er­ror expert Richard Clarke notes the shared fund­ing base in the United States of three off­shoots of the Mus­lim Brotherhood—Al Qaeda, Pales­tin­ian Islamic Jihad and Hamas. The Oper­a­tion Green Quest raids of 3/20/2002 revealed the SAAR net­work and over­lap­ping Safa Trust—a pri­mary exam­ple of this domes­tic over­lap. Do not fail to take stock of the fact that the SAAR network/Safa Trust net­work is inex­tri­ca­bly linked with the Bush admin­is­tra­tion and the GOP! The pro­gram descrip­tions cited in para­graph 17 delin­eate that rela­tion­ship at con­sid­er­able length. “There has been some under­stand­ing of the Brotherhood’s rela­tion­ship to Islamist groups, and of those ties even in the United States. In 2003 Richard Clarke said ‘the issue of ter­ror­ist financ­ing in the United States is a fun­da­men­tal exam­ple of the shared infra­struc­ture lev­ered by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and al Qaeda, all of which enjoy a sig­nif­i­cant degree of coop­er­a­tion and coor­di­na­tion within our bor­ders. The com­mon link here is the extrem­ist Mus­lim Brotherhood—all these orga­ni­za­tions are descen­dants of the mem­ber­ship and ide­ol­ogy of the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood.’ [Ital­ics are Mr. Emory’s]. How­ever, this under­stand­ing has not taken root in the intel­li­gence, law enforce­ment and pol­icy com­mu­ni­ties, nor has the finan­cial net­work of the Broth­er­hood come under intense scrutiny. Pub­lic records show the Brotherhood’s finan­cial net­work of hold­ing com­pa­nies, sub­sidiaries, shell banks and real finan­cial insti­tu­tions stretches to Panama, Liberia, British Vir­gin Islands, Cay­man Islands, Switzer­land, Cyprus, Nige­ria, Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay and beyond. Many of the enti­ties are in the names of indi­vid­u­als who, like Nada, Nasred­din, al-Qaradawi and Him­mat, have pub­licly iden­ti­fied them­selves as Broth­er­hood lead­ers.” (Idem.)

21. Note the com­plex inter­lac­ing and over­lap­ping of indi­vid­u­als and insti­tu­tions that char­ac­ter­izes the Brotherhood’s finan­cial insti­tu­tions. This struc­tural con­fig­u­ra­tion is cen­tral to the Brotherhood’s abil­ity to evade scrutiny and inter­dic­tion. This char­ac­ter­is­tic is present in the SAAR net­work and Safa Trust. “A senior U.S. gov­ern­ment offi­cial esti­mates the total assets of the inter­na­tional Broth­er­hood to be between $5 bil­lion and $10 bil­lion. It is a dif­fi­cult thing to assess because some indi­vid­ual mem­bers, such as Nada and Nasred­din, have great indi­vid­ual wealth. They also jointly own dozens of enter­prises, both real and off­shore, with Ghalib Him­mat and other Broth­er­hood lead­ers. Dis­cern­ing what is per­sonal wealth, legit­i­mate busi­ness oper­a­tions, and Broth­er­hood wealth is dif­fi­cult if not impos­si­ble. It is clear not all the money is intended to finance ter­ror or even rad­i­cal Islam. But it is equally clear that this net­work pro­vides the ways and means to move sig­nif­i­cant sums of cash for those oper­a­tions. One indi­ca­tion of a com­pany or cor­po­ra­tion being a Broth­er­hood activ­ity, rather than part of indi­vid­ual assets and wealth, is the over­lap of the same peo­ple on the direc­tor­ships of the finan­cial insti­tu­tions and com­pa­nies. For exam­ple, the Broth­er­hood net­work enti­ties estab­lished in Nas­sau, Bahamas, all reg­is­tered their address as that of the law firm –Arthur Hanna and Sons — which incor­po­rated their busi­nesses and bank­ing insti­tu­tions. Mem­bers of the Hanna fam­ily served on the boards of the banks and com­pa­nies, han­dled legal cor­re­spon­dence and rep­re­sented the com­pa­nies in legal cases. Many of the direc­tors of the myr­iad com­pa­nies served as direc­tors of sev­eral com­pa­nies simul­ta­ne­ously. In turn, many of those same peo­ple served simul­ta­ne­ously on the gov­ern­ing boards or sharia boards of DMI and other impor­tant Brotherhood-dominated finan­cial insti­tu­tions. The over­lap of direc­tor­ships and share­hold­ers strongly indi­cates the tight-knit nature of the orga­ni­za­tion and the inter-connectedness of the finan­cial net­work.” (Idem.)

22. A prin­ci­pal ele­ment of the Al Taqwa off­shore net­work is its oper­a­tions in the Bahamas. And once again, one should not lose sight of the rela­tion­ship between the Broth­er­hood, the Safa net­work and the GOP. “The most vis­i­ble part of the net­work, off­shore shell banks in the Bahamas, did merit some inves­ti­ga­tion imme­di­ately after 9–11. The Trea­sury Depart­ment pub­licly stated that Bank al Taqwa and Akida Bank Inter­na­tional were ‘involved in financ­ing rad­i­cal groups such as the Pales­tin­ian Hamas, Algeria’s Islamic Sal­va­tion Front and Armed Islamic Group, Tunisia’s An-Nahda, and Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida orga­ni­za­tion.’ The pri­mary share­hold­ers in al Taqwa Bank were Nada, Nasred­din, mem­bers of the Bin­laden fam­ily and dozens of other Broth­er­hood lead­ers, includ­ing Yousef al-Qaradawi, the grand mufti of the United Arab Emi­rates. A clus­ter of char­i­ties based in Hern­don, Va., where many lead­ers had ties to Nada and his bank­ing activ­i­ties, is under active inves­ti­ga­tion by the FBI and the Depart­ment of Home­land Secu­rity. Two of the lead­ers of the clus­ter, called the ‘Safa Group,’ incor­po­rated the al Taqwa Bank in Nas­sau, and other lead­ers worked for Nada’s banks and had exten­sive finan­cial deal­ing with him. Many of the Safa Group’s lead­ers are also mem­bers of the Broth­er­hood.” (Idem.)

23. The dis­cus­sion high­lights the var­i­ous activ­i­ties in which Al Taqwa engaged on behalf of Al Qaeda. “Unfor­tu­nately, while the Trea­sury Depart­ment des­ig­nated Bank al Taqwa and Akida Bank with great fan­fare in the imme­di­ate after­math of 9–11, it was largely the­ater. The gov­ern­ment of the Bahamas had already shut both banks down in April 2001. The inves­ti­ga­tions sub­se­quent to 9–11 revealed the ter­ror­ist ties that had been sus­pected, but never acted on. Ear­lier intel­li­gence oper­a­tions by the CIA found Bank al-Taqwa and other struc­tures of the busi­ness empire were used not only to fun­nel money to al Qaeda, but also pro­vided the ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tion with access to Inter­net ser­vices and encrypted tele­phones, and helped arrange arms ship­ments. The Trea­sury Depart­ment, cit­ing intel­li­gence sources, said that ‘As of Octo­ber 2000, Bank Al Taqwa appeared to be pro­vid­ing a clan­des­tine line of credit to a close asso­ciate of Usama bin Laden and as of late Sep­tem­ber 2001, Usama bin Laden and his al-Qaida orga­ni­za­tion received finan­cial assis­tance from Youssef M. Nada.’” (Idem.)

24. The pas­sage that fol­lows sets forth Al Taqwa’s “off­shore” oper­a­tions and how—like the cor­po­rate oper­a­tions dis­cussed by Lucy Komisar—that struc­ture has frus­trated attempts at inter­dict­ing its oper­a­tional activ­i­ties. “The struc­ture of Bank al Taqwa and Akida Bank in Nas­sau fol­low the pat­tern of other off­shore endeav­ors. The bank was a vir­tual bank, with only a hand­ful of employ­ees in Nas­sau man­ning com­put­ers and tele­phones. The bank was affil­i­ated with the al Taqwa Man­age­ment Orga­ni­za­tion, owned by another Nada entity in Switzer­land. Nada owned a con­trol­ling inter­est in the bank, and Nasred­din was a direc­tor. At the same address, Nasreddin’s Akida Bank Pri­vate Ltd, oper­ated as a sub­sidiary of the Nasred­din Foun­da­tion. Nasred­din was the pres­i­dent, and Nada served on the board. The real bank­ing activ­ity, how­ever, was car­ried out through cor­re­spon­dent rela­tion­ships with Euro­pean banks. Nada and Nasred­din, along with their banks, were des­ig­nated by the U.S. and the U.N. as ter­ror­ist financiers in Novem­ber 2001. In August 2002, the United States and Italy jointly des­ig­nated 14 more joint Nada/Nasreddin enti­ties for sup­port­ing ter­ror­ism. But that was not the end of the use of shell com­pa­nies and off-shore havens by the Nada/Nasreddin group. An exam­i­na­tion of these activ­i­ties point to seri­ous short­falls in the efforts to com­bat ter­ror­ist financ­ing.” (Idem.)

25. The sophis­ti­cated off­shore net­work of the Brotherhood’s finan­cial activ­i­ties has suc­cess­fully frus­trated attempts at shut­ting down its oper­a­tions. The fact that the Brotherhood’s finan­cial net­works uti­lize the same devices used by major cor­po­ra­tions to evade scrutiny has helped to per­pet­u­ate its oper­a­tional con­ti­nu­ity. Until or unless the inter­na­tional com­mu­nity act deci­sively to shut down the ille­gal off­shore struc­ture, it appears unlikely that the Brotherhood’s finan­cial net­work will be neu­tral­ized. “Despite the clear and com­pelling evi­dence that the off­shore net­work of the Broth­er­hood pro­vided vital finan­cial and logis­ti­cal sup­port to a vari­ety of Islamic ter­ror­ist oper­a­tions, the only action taken so far has been to freeze a few more of the com­pa­nies owned by Nada and Nasred­din. There has been lit­tle or no coor­di­nated, con­certed effort to map out, iden­tify and under­stand the rest of the Broth­er­hood struc­ture. One pos­si­ble excep­tion is the NATO project on the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood, which focused on the Brotherhood’s activ­i­ties in Europe and has sought to iden­tify the dif­fer­ent Broth­er­hood enti­ties.” (Idem.)

26. As dis­cussed in FTR#536, Liecht­en­stein is a major epi­cen­ter of Broth­er­hood finan­cial activ­ity. The fol­low­ing pas­sage notes the rel­a­tive lack of suc­cess in neu­tral­iz­ing Nada and Al Taqwa. Note, also, that many of the 272 indi­vid­u­als named as ter­ror­ist financiers by the U.N. remain untouched. “Many Broth­er­hood busi­nesses were reg­is­tered as off­shore com­pa­nies through local trusts in Liecht­en­stein, where there is no require­ment to iden­tify com­pa­nies’ own­ers, and no record is kept regard­ing activ­i­ties or trans­ac­tions. On Jan. 28, 2002, Nada, in vio­la­tion of the U.N. travel ban he is sub­ject to, trav­eled from his home in Cam­pi­one d’Italia, Switzer­land, to Vaduz, Liecht­en­stein. While in Vaduz, he sought to change the names of sev­eral of the des­ig­nated com­pa­nies. At the same time, he applied to put the new com­pa­nies in liq­ui­da­tion, and had him­self appointed as liq­uida­tor. As off­shore enti­ties, the newly-named com­pa­nies main­tained no records in Liecht­en­stein. Attempts by des­ig­nated ter­ror­ist financiers to switch com­pany reg­is­tra­tions, or estab­lish new com­pa­nies with­out their vis­i­ble par­tic­i­pa­tion, is a pat­tern dis­cov­ered by U.N. and Euro­pean inves­ti­ga­tors. While some enti­ties have been detected, many oth­ers are believed to have tran­spired with­out being detected or blocked. The United Nations Mon­i­tor­ing Group, which wrote a series of well-documented reports based on months of inves­ti­ga­tions around the world by a team of finan­cial experts, uncov­ered the Nada move­ments in Liecht­en­stein. The group con­cluded that ‘The Nada and Nasred­din exam­ples reflect con­tin­ued seri­ous weak­nesses regard­ing the con­trol of busi­ness activ­i­ties and assets other than bank accounts.’ The group cited the dif­fi­cul­ties in iden­ti­fy­ing ben­e­fi­cial own­er­ships and shared assets, and the weak­ness of the travel ban. In fact, the panel found the where­abouts of the vast major­ity of the 272 indi­vid­u­als named as ter­ror­ist financiers by the United Nations, remained unknown.” (Idem.)

27. The shift­ing off­shore cor­po­rate land­scape of the Brotherhood’s front com­pa­nies con­tin­ues to elude the efforts of inves­ti­ga­tors. “The modus operandi of Nada and Nasred­din is vis­i­ble else­where. Dozens of com­pa­nies of des­ig­nated indi­vid­u­als remain active despite the osten­si­ble inter­na­tional com­mit­ment to shut­ting them down. In some cases, such as Panama, com­pa­nies under the names of des­ig­nated indi­vid­u­als remain untouched. This does not include the many dozens of com­pa­nies and other cor­po­rate enti­ties belong­ing to des­ig­nated indi­vid­u­als, either out­right or through nom­i­nee share­hold­ers, reg­is­tered in the British Vir­gin Islands, Cay­man Islands and else­where in the Caribbean. While the Broth­er­hood reg­is­tered dozens of com­pa­nies in the 1980’s and 1990’s using Broth­er­hood lead­ers as iden­ti­fied direc­tors, this changed over time, mak­ing it more dif­fi­cult to trace the own­er­ship of the enti­ties. Begin­ning in the late 1990’s, per­haps in response to the few intel­li­gence probes that were car­ried out, many off­shore com­pa­nies have been shut down. Many appear to be re-opened under the direc­tion of nom­i­nee share­hold­ers, mak­ing the direct tie to the Broth­er­hood more dif­fi­cult to detect.” (Idem.)

28. It is worth not­ing that the sanc­tions designed to inter­dict ter­ror­ist financ­ing have been openly flaunted by some coun­tries, fur­ther imped­ing attempts at inter­rupt­ing the flow of ter­ror­ist monies. “How­ever, it is often not nec­es­sary to take any pre­cau­tions at all because the inter­na­tional sanc­tions regime aimed at des­ig­nated ter­ror­ist financiers is so weak. For exam­ple, Nige­ria is in fla­grant vio­la­tion of the UN sanc­tions regime by refus­ing to freeze the func­tion­ing busi­nesses of Nasred­din. Nasred­din has done noth­ing to hide his own­er­ship of the enter­prises. The pri­mary com­pany is Nasco Invest­ment & Prop­erty Ltd., owned by Amana Hold­ings and Man­age­ment Inc., a still-functioning off­shore com­pany reg­is­tered in Panama. The com­pany lists Nasred­din as its pres­i­dent. These issues — off­shore and shell com­pa­nies, front com­pa­nies and the inabil­ity to account for the vast major­ity of the des­ig­nated al Qaeda financiers or their bil­lions — make it dif­fi­cult to ascer­tain how much of al Qaeda’s finan­cial flow has been impaired in the 4 1/2 years since 9–11. . . .” (Idem.)

29. Next, the pro­gram reviews infor­ma­tion from FTR#513. One of the most impor­tant devel­op­ments in the cover-up of the 9/11 inves­tiga­tive trail is the sus­pen­sion of the Swiss inves­ti­ga­tion into Youssef Nada and the Bank al-Taqwa. “Swiss pros­e­cu­tors sus­pended one of the most cel­e­brated inves­ti­ga­tions into alleged ter­ror­ist financ­ing, say­ing there is insuf­fi­cient evi­dence to bring the case to trial. Although the inves­ti­ga­tion wasn’t dropped and the sus­pects’ names weren’t cleared, it is a par­tial vin­di­ca­tion for Youssef Nada and Ghaleb Him­mat, who were accused by Wash­ing­ton of using Nada Man­age­ment Orga­ni­za­tion and their Bank al-Taqwa to sup­port al Qaeda and other ter­ror­ist orga­ni­za­tions. Shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001 ter­ror­ist attacks in the U.S., the two men and three of their asso­ciates were placed on a terrorist-financing list that was adopted by the United Nations, effec­tively freez­ing their assets and mak­ing it impos­si­ble for them to travel. Those restric­tions remain in place. . . .”
(‘Swiss Won’t Bring Big Terror-Finance Case to Trial’ by Ian John­son; The Wall Street Jour­nal; 6/2/2005; P. A11.)

30. The inves­ti­ga­tion was ham­pered by the fail­ure of the Bahamas Bank al-Taqwa to coop­er­ate with this inves­ti­ga­tion. The Saudis also with­held crit­i­cal evi­dence. As we saw in FTR#514, the U.S. author­i­ties also with­held crit­i­cal infor­ma­tion deemed essen­tial to the al-Taqwa inves­ti­ga­tion. “ . . . Mr. Wied­mer said finan­cial author­i­ties in the Bahamas, where Bank al-Taqwa was reg­is­tered, refused to answer numer­ous requests for help. In addi­tion, the bank’s books were stashed at an undis­closed pri­vate address in Saudi Ara­bia, he said, and with­out them, pros­e­cu­tors were stymied. He said Messrs. Nada and Him­mat weren’t obliged to hand over the books. ‘This was the essen­tial gap in the chain of evi­dence,’ Mr. Wied­mer said. Offi­cials in the Bahamas attor­ney general’s office didn’t return phone calls request­ing com­ment. . . .” (Idem.)

31. Mr. bin Mus­salim was found dead, a month after the Wolfe let­ter became pub­lic! A forth­com­ing book by Guil­laume Dasquie (the co-author, along with Jean Charles Bris­ard, of For­bid­den Truth), charges that bin Mus­salim had a Saudi pass­port. “A Swiss-based busi­ness­man accused by the US Trea­sury of pro­vid­ing finan­cial help to Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda car­ried a Saudi diplo­matic pass­port, accord­ing to copies of doc­u­ments con­tained in a book pub­lished on Thurs­day in Paris. The doc­u­ments include a let­ter from the US Trea­sury to the Swiss author­i­ties, which says that al-Qaeda and its leader received finan­cial assis­tance from the busi­ness­man Ali bin Mus­salim ‘as of late Sep­tem­ber 2001’. They also include a copy of Mr. bin Mussalim’s diplo­matic pass­port. The dis­clo­sures, con­tained in Al-Qaeda Will Con­quer (Al-Qa’ida Vain­cra), by the author Guil­laume Dasquie, will be uncom­fort­able read­ing for the Saudi gov­ern­ment, which has dis­puted any sug­ges­tions of offi­cial com­plic­ity in the attacks of Sep­tem­ber 11 2001.”
(‘Swiss-Based al-Qaeda Sus­pect Had Saudi Pass­port’ by Stephen Fidler; Finan­cial Times; 4/27/2005; p. 1.)

32. Could Mr. bin Mussalim’s death been the result of foul play? “The Jan­u­ary 2002 let­ter from George Wolfe, then the US Treasury’s deputy gen­eral coun­sel, says Mr. bin Mus­salim ‘has been pro­vid­ing indi­rect invest­ment ser­vices for al-Qaeda, invest­ing funds for bin Laden, and mak­ing cash deliv­er­ies on request to the al-Qaeda orga­ni­za­tion.’ The let­ter links him to the now defunct Bank al-Taqwa and its founder, Youssef Nada. Both have been named by the US and United Nations as providers of ter­ror­ist finance. The exis­tence of the let­ter has been pre­vi­ously reported by some news orga­ni­za­tions, but Mr. bin Mussalim’s diplo­matic sta­tus was not empha­sized. Accord­ing to the book, Mr. bin Mus­salim was found dead in his res­i­dence in Lau­sanne last June, a month after reports of the US Trea­sury let­ter first emerged. . . . [Empha­sis added.]” (Idem.)

33. An intrigu­ing aspect of the late, unfor­tu­nate Mr. bin Mussalim’s career con­cerns his ille­gal activ­i­ties in the U.S. Those activ­i­ties involved col­lab­o­ra­tion in the attempted cor­ner­ing of the sil­ver mar­ket. Prin­ci­pal fig­ures in that were the Saudis and Nel­son Bunker Hunt, son and heir to the late H.L. Hunt. Bunker Hunt has been a promi­nent far-right activist for many years, most recently rec­og­nized for his role in Oliver North’s off-the-shelf oper­a­tion to sup­port the Con­tra gueril­las in Nicaragua. Bank Al Taqwa and the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood are net­worked with fas­cists and reac­tionar­ies from many other cultures—part of the Under­ground Reich vir­tual state. “ . . . Mr. bin Mussalim’s role in con­tro­ver­sial finan­cial deal­ings goes back to the early 1980s, when US pros­e­cu­tors accused him and oth­ers of attempts to cor­ner the sil­ver mar­ket. . . .” (Ibid.; p. 2.)

34. More about the Hunt/Saudi col­lab­o­ra­tion in the attempted cor­ner­ing of the sil­ver mar­ket. “. . . DEBKA-Net-Weekly’s sources in Wash­ing­ton learn that before he left, Abdul­lah met the heads of the Dallas-based Hunt Pri­vate Equity Group to dis­cuss pri­vate invest­ments in the com­pany. More than 20 years ago, Abdul­lah and other Saudi princes were heav­ily invested with the group and suf­fered major losses when the price of sil­ver col­lapsed. [Empha­sis added.] His con­fer­ence with Hunt’s direc­tors aimed at dis­plac­ing some of these bad mem­o­ries with advan­ta­geous Saudi invest­ments in the United States. . . .”
(DEBKA-Net-Weekly Issue #204, 5/6/2005.)

35. Author Dick Rus­sell dis­cussed the Hunt family’s attempt at cor­ner­ing the sil­ver mar­ket: “ . . .The Hunts then pretty much dropped from notoriety—until 1988, when a fed­eral jury in New York ruled that Bunker and Her­bert had con­spired in a rack­e­teer­ing scheme to cor­ner the world sil­ver mar­ket in 1979–80. . . .”
(The Man Who Knew Too Much; by Dick Rus­sell; Copy­right 1992 by Dick Rus­sell; Car­roll & Graf [HC]; ISBN 0–88184-900–6; p. 598.)

36. The lat­ter part of the pro­gram sets forth some of the inter­na­tional net­work­ing in which Nel­son Bunker Hunt has engaged. Founded by Gen­eral Charles Willoughby, the German-born, fas­cist ide­o­logue who served as Dou­glas MacArthur’s chief of intel­li­gence through­out World War II, the ICDCC brought together Amer­i­can reac­tionar­ies such as Hunt, Third Reich intel­li­gence vet­er­ans such as Her­mann Pun­der and SS war crim­i­nal Theodor Ober­lan­der and fas­cists from around the world. One of the fig­ures in the ICDCC (but not men­tioned here) is key Nazi banker Her­mann Abs. Again, the infor­ma­tion about Hunt and the ICDCC should be con­sid­ered in the wider con­text of the inter­na­tional net­work­ing in which Al Taqwa, Nada and the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood are involved. “His [Willoughby’s] Inter­na­tional Com­mit­tee for the Defense of Chris­t­ian Cul­ture (ICDCC) had two branches in Bonn, where its founder was an ex-Nazi turned anti-Communist. The organization’s avowed pur­pose was ‘resis­tance against regimes and polit­i­cal con­cepts con­trary to its own.’ In this con­text in linked extrem­ists in Spain and Por­tu­gal together with Ger­many, and across the Atlantic to the United States. One of the IDCC’s lead­ing lights was Walker’s early 1963 trav­el­ing com­pan­ion seg­re­ga­tion­ist preacher [Billy James] Har­gis, on whose Chris­t­ian Cru­sade National Advi­sory Com­mit­tee Willoughby like­wise presided. A major ICDCC fun­der was Nel­son Bunker Hunt, son of the oil bil­lion­aire. Willoughby’s friend­ship with H.L. Hunt dated back at least to the early 1950’s, when the oil­man met reg­u­larly with Willoughby and other gen­er­als in New York in seek­ing to push a pres­i­den­tial bid by Gen­eral MacArthur. . . . Willoughby’s ICDCC, about which lit­tle is known, pre­ferred behind-the-scenes maneu­ver­ing.” (Ibid.; p. 322.)

37. More about the ICDCC—the inter­na­tional fas­cist net­work to which Nel­son Bunker Hunt belonged. Note the pres­ence in this milieu of peo­ple asso­ci­ated with the fas­cist Opus Dei Catholic orga­ni­za­tion and Theodor Ober­lan­der. Ober­lan­der is an SS offi­cer and war crim­i­nal. His oper­a­tions in con­junc­tion with the Nightin­gale orga­ni­za­tion are dis­cussed in AFA# 14. “ . . . It was the annual con­gress of Charles Willoughby’s Inter­na­tional Com­mit­tee for the Defense of Chris­t­ian Cul­ture (ICDCC), and MacArthur’s for­mer intel­li­gence chief was speak­ing on what he called ‘an ‘old theme’: the Sorge espi­onage case.’ Pre­sid­ing at the Octo­ber 14–16 affair was Jose Solis Ruiz, a min­is­ter in the Span­ish cab­i­net of dic­ta­tor Franco and a lead­ing order of a secret Catholic order called Opus Dei. Among the speak­ers was Dr. Theodor Ober­lan­der, a for­mer Ger­man offi­cer who had led the Ukrain­ian Nightin­gales in World War II (See Chap­ter Ten). Ober­lan­der had served as West Germany’s min­is­ter of refugee affairs until 1960, when details of his wartime role became pub­lic and he was forced to resign. He was also a del­e­gate to the Asian people’s Anti-Communist League. Her­man Pun­der, the ICDCC’s out­go­ing inter­na­tional pres­i­dent, was an ex-Nazi Abwehr agent. Both Pun­der and Ober­lan­der had direct con­nec­tions into the Munich-based news­pa­per that, the day after the assas­si­na­tion, would con­tact Gen­eral Walker—and then some­how ‘scoop’ the world on the pre­vi­ously unknown news that Oswald had fired on Walker in April.” (Ibid.; p. 528.)

Discussion

No comments for “FTR #556 Update on 9/11 and Related Matters”

Post a comment