Editor's Note: Reporter Sports Editor David Staba was the first Western New York print journalist on the scene following the Sept. 11, 2001 World Trade Center attack, and has been covering the case of the "Lackawanna Six" for The New York Times since their arrest by federal authorities nearly five months ago. His exclusive analysis appears here for the first time.
During last week's State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush referred to breaking up an al-Qaeda cell "in Buffalo, N.Y." as a crowning victory in his administration's War on Terror.
Sounds impressive. Too bad, like so much of the rhetoric propelling the United States inexorably toward another Gulf War, it's just not true.
As James Harrington, attorney for one of the six Lackawanna men arrested on Sept. 13, 2002, pointed out, not even the federal prosecutors in the case have offered any evidence, or even suggested, that there was a "sleeper cell" operating in the shadows of rusting steel mills south of Buffalo.
Harrington's client, Sahim Alwan, and the others are charged with providing material support to al-Qaeda by attending a training camp near Kandahar, Afghanistan, three months before the Sept. 11 attacks on New York City and Washington, D.C.
The feds charge that by doing so, the men violated the Anti-Terrorism Act, which was passed in 1996 and beefed up by the Patriot Act in the wake of Sept. 11.
One of the defendants, Faysal Galab, pleaded guilty to a reduced charge earlier this month. In making his deal, Galab said Alwan told him he had met Osama bin Laden after leaving the camp and that Alwan repeatedly told Galab to lie to FBI agents if questioned.
Based on Galab's statement, Assistant U.S. Attorney William Hochul filed a motion asking Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder to revoke the bail conditions he set on Alwan, the only defendant granted the possibility of pretrial release, in October. Last week, Schroeder agreed to revisit the issue, setting a hearing for this Friday at which Harrington will get the chance to cross-examine Galab.
Whether or not the five remaining Lackawanna defendants are eventually convicted, or if the Patriot Act itself passes Constitutional muster when it inevitably goes before the Supreme Court, the case has been used as a public-relations weapon by the White House ever since the arrests were made.
Nowhere in the mountains of paperwork filed by the U.S. Attorney's office do prosecutors offer any evidence that the men had further contact with al-Qaeda after returning to Lackawanna, or that they planned to carry out any sort of terrorist attack.
Yet there was the President of the United States, on national television delivering his State of the Union address, verbally convicting U.S. citizens of a crime with which they hadn't even been charged.
"Since this case has begun, the U.S. Attorney and the Assistant U.S. Attorney handling the case have not said the defendants are members of al-Qaeda, or that they were planning to carry out any terrorist act," Harrington said. "Yet officials at the highest level keep saying it's a 'sleeper cell.' That's not the case and they know it's not the case, yet they keep saying it."
If a newspaper made such a blatantly untrue statement, lawsuits would begin before the next edition hit the stands. Yet Bush not only convicted the Lackawanna men of a connection to terrorism with which they're not charged, he linked them with al-Qaeda leaders who had been captured or killed in the Middle East and cells in Milan, Madrid, London, Paris and Hamburg, -- the launching pad for the Sept. 11 hijackers.
"When someone with his power and prestige says those things, it's wrong and it undermines our system," Harrington said.
Bush then segued into a few lines about homeland security and a few more about North Korea before finally getting to the payoff of the whole speech -- the need to make war on Iraq.
Forget that federal prosecutors haven't even attempted to link the Lackawanna Six to al-Qaeda once they left the camp, or mentioned the name Saddam Hussein once in the course of presenting their case.
But Bush and other administration officials routinely cite Sept. 11 in making their arguments for war, conjuring the horrific images of that day in an effort to link the hijackers and Hussein. Not that the White House has offered any evidence of a direct link between the religious fanatics who make up al-Qaeda and the decidedly secular Hussein.
The closest they've come has been a report last week that one al-Qaeda leader visited Baghdad and received medical attention there. Of course, every one of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers lived, worked and/or went to school right here in the United States, many of them in Florida. Does that mean Florida Gov. Jeb Bush is also connected with al-Qaeda? And what about our good friend Saudi Arabia, home of 15 of the 19?
Still, much of the public seems eager to embrace the connection. An August Gallup poll showed 53 percent of respondents believed Hussein had something to do with the Sept. 11 attacks even before the White House's ongoing marketing campaign began.
Bush has hardly been the only one stretching the truth, or fabricating it altogether, while trying to convince the American people and the world that Iraq needs invading, and quick.
Secretary of State Colin Powell and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld cited the report delivered last week by chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix as further evidence that war is necessary and imminent.
Wait a minute, said Blix.
Blix told them inspectors found no reason to believe Iraq was hiding or moving weapons within or out of the country, nor did Iraqi agents attempt to infiltrate the inspection teams, both claims made by Powell after the report was issued.
On Wednesday, Powell is scheduled to make a presentation to the U.N. Security Council at which he'll reportedly display fuzzy spy-plane photos showing some vans moving around facilities where inspectors didn't find any weapons. What, precisely, this will prove is anyone's guess.
The White House is clearly counting on Powell's presentation to persuade the American people more than Security Council members. Bush has continually made it clear he's willing to send troops into Iraq with or without U.N. support. With France, Russia and China holding veto power, it's increasingly likely he'll have to opt for "without."
Powell is, for some reason, perceived by much of the public as the most trustworthy member of Bush's war machine. He'll be putting that credibility on the line when he makes his presentation to the Security Council.
Like his boss, Powell will surely argue that if Hussein doesn't prove he doesn't have nuclear, chemical or biological capabilities, we must "disarm" him.
This reasoning ignores a simple fact familiar to anyone who has ever taken a philosophy class -- you can't prove a negative.
Hussein can't prove he doesn't have a nuclear warhead or poisonous gas any more than Bush can prove his handlers don't teach him their carefully crafted speeches phonetically.
Intelligence sources told CNN that while Powell's presentation will show that Iraq has been less than helpful to inspectors, it won't contain solid evidence that the oft-mentioned "weapons of mass destruction" are ready for use or even under development.
And without that proof -- of which Blix said his inspectors found no evidence -- Bush wants the American people and the world community to follow him into war as a leap of faith.
Few outside of Hussein's immediate family could argue that he isn't a brutal tyrant capable of unspeakably monstrous acts. But that's been true since before Bush's father was even vice president.
Whether the true impetus for invading Iraq is oil, revenge or camouflaging the skyrocketing deficits and lagging economic indicators on the home front, the public statements issued by the White House and Pentagon keep recalling Harrington's words in Buffalo federal court last week.
"That's not the case, and they know that's not the case, yet they keep saying it."
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | February 4 2003 |