Showing posts with label Prince Turki al-Faisal. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Prince Turki al-Faisal. Show all posts

Monday, January 11, 2010

Jang Group & Shaheen Sehbai VS Saudi Arabia.

WASHINGTON, October 17: Dear Readers, this is the final piece on the South Asia Tribune, as this site is now being closed for good. I understand that it may come as a rude shock to many and may create despair and depression for all those who had started to look up to SAT as a beacon of courage and resistance, but this decision has been based on many factors, which I will explain briefly. SAT would be on line for the rest of this month, till the end of October. On November 1, 2005 it will disappear from the Internet. All those who may be interested in keeping a record of any SAT article or report can save it any time before that date. REFERENCE: The Final Word from theSouth Asia Tribune By Shaheen Sehbai WASHINGTON DC, Oct 17, 2005 ISSN: 1684-2057 www.satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/200510/P1_sat.htm






Mr Shaheen Sehbai (former correspondent of Daily Dawn; former editor of The News; ex Director News of ARY ONE TV Channel; former director of GEO News Network; and presently Group Editor the News), escaped from Pakistan to save himself from the so-called wrath of the establishment headed by General Musharraf, after the controversy surrounding his story about the murder of Daniel Pearl. It was apparently simply to obtain the Green Card for himself, and his family in the United States. Mr Sehbai then started to run a web based news service, i.e., South Asia Tribune, funded through dubious sources, but he suddenly reappeared and closed his website. During his self-imposed exile in the USA, he used to raise hue and cry against the military establishment that he and his family members’ life was in danger, but the so-called danger suddenly vanished after the whole family getting the Green Cards. He then returned to Pakistan and that too under the same Musharraf regime, and joined ARY TV channel, then GEO, and then the News, where he is presently working.



Now as to how Jang Group/The News International plays with the National Interest of Pakistan.

"QUOTE"



By Shaheen Sehbai in Washington and Rauf Klasra in Islamabad Vol-2, Jul 27-Aug 02, 2002 ISSN:1684-0275 www.satribune.com Vol-2, Jul 27- Aug 02, 2002 ISSN:1684-0275 satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/index.htm

It can only be called mind boggling. Something very mysterious and fishy was going on between the Saudi Royal family and General Musharraf's government prior to September 11 WTC attacks. Or, as the Pakistan Ambassador to the Royal Kingdom hinted, someone was trying to use the name of the Saudi royals to promote some hidden agenda in Pakistan under the garb of huge investments. Documents in Pakistani Government files show that on Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz's invitation, a Saudi prince had offered to invest close to $10 billion in Pakistan, an offer which was unprecedented in Pakistani and Saudi history. The money would have come over a few years but $300 million were immediately made available and the Saudis were very eager to get things off the ground, as if in a great rush.

The offer was so serious General Musharraf himself wrote a letter to the Saudi prince, inviting him to Islamabad. The prince wrote back accepting the invitation and first sent his representatives to do the ground work. The Saudis wanted to invest in four key sectors: Renew a whole new city project near capital Islamabad (a project launched by the Benazir Bhutto government but later abandoned); take over country's second largest and lucrative Habib Bank of Pakistan; build an oil refinery in Port city of Karachi; and build or buy a five star hotel. The projections of investment were $4 billion in the city project, $2 billion for the oil refinery, $2-3billion for Habib Bank and $100 million for the five-star hotel.

This mysterious story began with secret negotiations between the two sides sometime in beginning of 2000 resulted in General Pervez Musharraf dispatching a letter on Nov 6, 2002 to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, said to be Chairman of the little known International Islamic Development Trust (IIDT) and International Infrastructure Development Company (IIDC). (Click to view the image).

The prince had accepted to be Chairman of the company on April 9, 2000 vide a signed letter (Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/saudiacceptance.jpg



The highly pleased prince responded with his own letter to General Musharraf dated Nov 30, 2000 in which he disclosed that a team of IIDC/IIDT was already "in serious negotiations" with Pakistani officials as he was writing the reply. (Click to view the image). http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/turkiletter.jpg


General Musharraf was asked to give an audience to the prince's man, IIDT President one Mr Saeed Akhtar, who, he wrote, "can brief you in person (about) the avenues we are seeking for cooperation and investment." It is not clear whether General Musharraf received Saeed Akhtar but in two letters sent to the Board of Investment, Government of Pakistan, on Dec 14 and Dec 20, 2000, IIDT and its subsidiary SUNWAYCO, gave details of the proposed investments. Ambassador Asad Durrani says SUNWAYCO was not a Saudi-backed company and no royal family member was involved. He also disputes that Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz had anything to do with these offers but he says Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz has been investing in Pakistan. The documents in Pakistan Government files, however, mention Prince Sultan Bin Turki and his signatures, genuine or forged, are there on at least three documents. It is not clear whether General Musharraf received Saeed Akhtar but in two letters sent to the Board of Investment, Government of Pakistan, on Dec 14 and Dec 20, 2000, IIDT and its subsidiary SUNWAYCO, gave details of the proposed investments. Ambassador Asad Durrani says SUNWAYCO was not a Saudi-backed company and no royal family member was involved. He also disputes that Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz had anything to do with these offers but he says Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz has been investing in Pakistan. The documents in Pakistan Government files, however, mention Prince Sultan Bin Turki and his signatures, genuine or forged, are there on at least three documents. The first detailed SUNWAYCO offer was made in a letter dated Dec 20, 2000 and said in part: "We take this opportunity to introduce our group as investors from Saudi Arabia and other Muslim countries including overseas Pakistanis, headed by His Royal Highness Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, under the name of International Islamic Development Trust (IIDT) incorporated under the laws of Bahamas with the base capital of US$ 3.8 billion." (Click to view the image

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway1.jpg



URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway2.jpg



ULR: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/sunway3.jpg



"The Trust activities include diverse economic fields but mainly it helps and assists in the social and infrastructure development sectors and human development particularly in the Muslim developing countries," the letter said, disclosing that "IIDT has already budgeted for an initial investment of $1 billion in Pakistan during the next 12 months with a firm commitment for further investments in different mega projects in years to come. We have already approached the concerned authorities.." it said, giving details of the four sectors and the expected investment totaling over $9 billion. IIDT has already approved an initial financing of $200 million and $100 million as a soft term loan for the Islamabad New City Project. The money is available for immediate dispersal, the letter said.

The Board of Investment responded to the offer on Jan 2, 2001 saying the proposals were being sent to different ministries for consultations and when their views are available, the BOI will revert to you.(Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/boiletter.jpg



A copy of the proposals was faxed to the Pakistan Ambassador in Saudi Arabia, Lt. General (Retd) Asad Durrani, a former head of Pakistan's infamous Inter-Services intelligence agency, the ISI. That is when the trouble for the Saudis began.

On Jan 15, 2001, Gen Asad Durrani sent a letter to the Board of Investment writing, inter alia, that the Prince's company was fake and "cannot be entrusted responsibility for huge projects for which it has shown interest."

The Durrani letter was a bomb shell for many and only he knows why he kicked out proposals for billions of dollars of investment, dismissing the company as fake. The written reason Durrani gave for his judgment was that "the company is not known in business circles of Saudi Arabia, the phone numbers given do not belong to it, and faxes sent to the prince have remained unanswered." (Click to view the image). URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/rejectionletter.jpg



Later talking to the SA Tribune on phone from Riyadh on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, Gen. Durrani confirmed that he had blocked the offer as it looked suspicious with apparently no connection to the Saudi Royal Family. He said two Pakistanis met him in connection with the proposed investments but he found them to be suspicious and could not believe they were able to invest billions of dollars in Pakistan. "Straightaway, whenever someone comes and gives you such a project, you should get suspicious...If I were to go and make these claim that I want to invest 12billion dollars, people will throw me out of the room, I suppose," General Durrani said. (Click to hear Interview). On Jan 20, 2001 the Board of Investment issued a letter saying in view of Gen. Durrani's comments, the Saudi investments "chapter should be closed."

The Saudis were enraged, so say the least, and felt embarrassed and insulted. But in Pakistani files a letter of Prince Sultan is available which appears to be another desperate attempt to revive the project. This letter is addressed strangely enough to the then Chairman of the National Accountability Bureau, Lt. General Maqbool, now Governor of Punjab province, with copies to Gen. Musharraf's office and Board of Investment. In this letter dated March 7, 2001, the Prince wrote that the IIDT had already started work on the oil refinery while the purchase of Habib Bank was under negotiations. (Click to view the image) URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/genmaqbool.jpg



The letter emphasized that IIDT was ready for final negotiations and urged the NAB Chairman to complete these negotiations "under your personal auspices" at the earliest. Why was an accountability bureau chief being asked to take over the investment portfolio is not only mysterious but unexplained.

Nothing happened on the Pakistani side, though.

On May 21, 2001 SUNWAYCO, the lead company for the Islamabad city project, rejected as "fake" by Ambassador Asad Durrani, sent a five-page letter to the Chairman, Board of Investment, with copies to Finance, Interior and Housing Ministers, General Musharraf's Chief of Staff, now late Gen Ghulam Ahmed, Chairman of National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and other officials.

This letter accused General Durrani of sabotaging their proposals and gave some more details of what had been going on behind the scenes. ( Click to view the image pg:1 pg:2 pg:3 pg:4 pg:5 ). It for the first and last time mentioned the name of Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, saying he had already visited Pakistan along with a representative of IIDT/IIDC.

http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest1.jpg

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest2.jpg

ULR: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest3.jpg

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest4.jpg

URL: http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/july27_02_02/images/frontpage/saudi%20story%20images/protest5.jpg

It also revealed that:

The IIDT was invited to invest in Pakistan by Finance Minister Shaukat Aziz. IIDT had approved an initial $1 billion and another $1.5 billion for investment. Concerned Pak Government authorities have been seriously negotiating with representatives of IIDT/IIDC and various delegations have exchanged visits. A representative of IIDT, Mr Al Riyatti was included in the delegation of Saudi Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz. Describing SUNWAYCO as a fake company was a malicious statement and it is libel under international law for a compensation exceeding billions of dollars. The immediate inflow of $300 million in these projects has been stopped. A formal apology to Prince Sultan was demanded from the Government of Pakistan. But the letter still kept the doors open and suggested some remedies including a visit of the Board of Investment Chairman to Saudi Arabia and eliminating the role of the Pak Ambassador in Saudi Arabia in any future dealings which, it proposed, should be done through the Saudi Embassy in Islamabad and directly with the office of Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, whose telephone numbers and contacts were given.

An application was also filed with Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan on May 21, 2001 to incorporate SUNWAYCO in Pakistan.

The Islamabad address of the Saudi company in Sector F-10 was said to be a huge office until around May of 2001. A visit to that office this week by our correspondent Rauf Klasra showed there was nothing there any more. "I went there in the afternoon on Tuesday, July 23, 2002, and found the house (office) closed. Neighbours told me that a big office was opened a couple of years ago but had been closed for more than a year. There was no sign board, no name plate, or anything indicating any Saudi presence in that house. Repeated ringing of door bell to confirm whether someone was inside produced no response," he reported. "Everybody appears to have evaporated into thin air."
All this has raised a number of questions, which remain unanswered. Among them:

Why did the former ISI Chief Gen Durrani summarily dismiss the offer as fake. Did he have some special background of the company or the people behind it? He says the looks of the executives of the company, who were Pakistanis and not Saudis, were suspicious. Can a government make judgments about investment proposals sent in writing on mere looks of some people?
Who really is Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz? There is no detail available on any Saudi site. He is said to be a close relation of the long time Saudi intelligence chief Prince Turki bin Abdul Aziz. Does it mean it was some kind of a Saudi intelligence scheme to pump in money into Pakistan and take control of strategic assets like a major bank, a whole city where any number of people could stay and take shelter, a five-star hotel to keep VIPs, a front business like an oil refinery? The Ambassador says Prince Sultan Bin Turki was not involved. Then why have all the government files letters signed by him and correspondence in his name.
Why did General Pervez Musharraf write a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz, if he was not the person involved. Why not send a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Nasir, who did visit Pakistan later? Who misled Musharraf and what game was going on? The Ambassador says the other Prince, Sultan Bin Nasir, was interested in investments, but his name does not figure on any file or in the proposals made by IIDT/IIDC or SUNWAYCO. Was he then in the picture or was he trying to hide his name for fear of exposure or some other reason?
Was something going on between General Musharraf and the Saudis to create a huge joint infrastructure that could be used later for any other purpose? Why were the Saudis, or people using their name and identities, so keen to pump in money and then suddenly disappeared? Was it all connected to terrorism or terrorist organizations operating in Afghanistan and in the US?









Following is the transcript of the interview of Lt. General (Retd) Asad Durrani, Pakistan Ambassador to Saudi Arabia with Shaheen Sehbai, Editor, South Asia Tribune, on Tuesday, July 23, 2002 about suspicious Saudi investment plans in Pakistan. The interview was in English, but was mixed with Urdu language in some places:

SS: Last year, some time around March/April, the Government of Pakistan decided, and that was on the basis of one of your comments, that this (Saudi) company was not genuine. The Government closed the whole project and they said this matter is closed..

AD: Yes, there was one company which did not belong to any of the princes. About that, I had said look we cannot find out anything about that company here.

SS: Sunwayco..

AD: Apparently that company had their headquarters in Switzerland..

SS: Probably in Monaco…

AD: That's the only thing that I remember, the rest, Prince Sultan Bin Nasir and others, they are very genuine people.

SS: Have there been any investments in the last one year or two by these people in Pakistan?

AD: I think there have been plenty of investments in the last year and a half. If you are interested, you can always send your contact number and fax and one will dig out all the details.

SS: (Did these investments include) any of these big projects they were talking about like buying the Habib Bank or setting up a Islamabad (New city).

AD: No, on that, I don't think anything final has been done, I think these negotiations take a long time, I suppose.

SS: What is the position of Prince Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Turki, is he fairly high in the royal family?

AD: Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, and this name has no "Turki" anywhere.

SS: But the papers that we have show Prince "Turki" is also there.

AD: I would suggest to you not to depend on the papers, because it confuses the source, it confuses the name, it confuses the project. But, you know, we have to live with this environment, I suppose. Sultan Bin Nasir Bin Abdul Aziz, that means he is the direct descendant of King Abdul Aziz.

SS: One of your letters was about a company named Sunwayco…

AD: Oh, yes yes, that is the one we were told that is based in Geneva and we found out they had some representatives here but they were "airy fairy."

SS: And that was the company. Probably they were trying to make those proposals in Pakistan. Later, they wrote a protest letter too to the Government of Pakistan…

AD: That's correct, when you talk of Sunwayco, that is correct. Sunwayco, Switzerland, as far as I know, there was no prince involved in it. The two gentlemen, who were here, were also not Saudis who came to see me.

SS: They were Pakistanis probably, the letters had Pakistani names like Sohail Akhtar and..

AD: He never came to us, their Pakistani representative never came to us.

SS: Why have they been using the name of the prince, because his name is (everywhere).

AD: I suppose, I don't know why they did that exactly, you can probably ask them but I was not told the name of the prince.

SS: President General Musharraf also wrote a letter to Prince Sultan Bin Turki Bin Abdul Aziz regarding cooperation and then he replied back. Things were going back and forth.

AD: I really would not know about that.

SS: But basically what the story is saying…

AD: When you refer to Sultan Bin Turki's name, then I get confused and I don't know what case you are talking about. I am not aware of that..

SS: But the whole case, they say, is because, you wrote a letter, you wrote about Sunwayco, that's very clear in your letter.

AD: I definitely wrote about Sunwayco that we have no information about this company. Here in Saudia, we have no information and we could not trace out this company. You better ask Switzerland where this company is based. After that, these two gentlemen did come to me and told me that were the (Sunwayco) representatives, how could you state that we don't exist. So, those two gentlemen came but I was not convinced. To me it was something not interesting really.

SS: They were asking for fairly huge projects, if you total their proposed investment, it was something close to 8-9 billion dollars.

AD: Straightaway, whenever someone comes and gives you such a project, you should get suspicious.

SS: Something was suspicious because 8-9 billion dollars, like 4 billions dollars for a city near Islamabad, 3-4 billion dollars in Habib Bank, another 2 billion in an oil refinery, that was huge money. It has never been done before.

AD: If I were to go and make these claim that I want to invest 12 billion dollars, people will throw me out of the room, I suppose.



"UNQUOTE"

"QUOTE"





The Saudis Respond to Bugging Story: Pakistanis Still Mum Special SAT Report Issue No 65, Nov 2-8, 2003 ISSN:1684-2057 satribune.com http://antisystemic.org/satribune/www.satribune.com/archives/nov2_8_03/P1_saudi.htm
ISLAMABAD: Saudi Arabia has finally reacted to the South Asia Tribune report that the suites of Crown Prince Abdullah were bugged in Islamabad and that the Saudis had detected the bugging. But the Saudi response, coming almost a week after the report was published by SA Tribune and then by several international newspapers, raises more questions than it answers. The Saudi Ambassador in Islamabad, Ali Awadh Asseri, when contacted by an Islamabad newspaper “The News” described the report as “irresponsible”. "Such irresponsible reporting has its own motives and objectives,” the ambassador told “The News” while commenting on the report.

But then he immediately went into the diplomatic mode and said: “Let me assure you that nothing in the whole world can affect traditional historical ties between Pakistan and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.” The implication either was that the bugging could not affect the historical ties or may be its reporting did not. The ambassador was quoted as saying: “This irresponsible report did not reflect the historical trust existing among the two countries and the two nations. The love and affection demonstrated by the Government of Pakistan during Crown prince visit showed what the visit meant to them.” "What we saw in Pakistan during the visit---the genuine love was unprecedented," Ambassador Asseri said.

This was the total comment of the Saudi Ambassador but “The News” also quoted an un-named Saudi source, who said the report was “an attempt only aimed at the derangement of the historical relations between the Kingdom of SA and the brotherly country of Pakistan.” "The current relations between the two countries are based on a stable principle and transparency in dealing with every matter between the two countries which does not need from either side to resort to such acts that are mentioned by those who are prejudiced,” un-named source was quoted as saying.

"The Kingdom of SA while stressing the falsehood of this story reaffirms that it does not pay any attention to this matter and that its trust in its brotherly Pakistan is bigger than any attempt from someone to harm it or influence it," the un-named source said. Though the Saudi response came a week after the story was published, interestingly there has been absolutely no reaction from the Pakistani officials. Highly placed sources in the Pakistani police, however, again confirmed to the SA Tribune that the incident did take place and the Saudis were very angry about it all. But the sources said the Pakistani officials were not issuing any official statement as they did not want to convey to the Saudis what may be perceived as “public lies or misstatements” about something the Saudis knew well was true. Amusingly the statement of the Saudi Ambassador in Islamabad was published only in Islamabad and the same correspondent who filed the story and who also reports for the English language newspaper, The Saudi Gazette, published in Jeddah, did not either file the story to his Saudi newspaper, or they did not use it.

"UNQUOTE"

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Historical Facts Muslims Forget so Conveniently




Muslims must share the responsibility for this present Royal Mess in Iraq, Afghanistan. And we are complaining about Jews, Christian and Hindus but fail to see under our very nose and if somebody tries to explain than he is termed Anti-Islamic, Socialist, Marxist and every bad thing in the book. Read and enjoy as to how to keep yourself in the Corridors of Power perpetually.


"During the Iran-Iraq war, Saudi Arabia bankrolled the Saddam Hussein regime with the express approval of Washington DC which at that time saw Saddam Hussein as a bulwark against Shia fundamentalism. It came as a terrific shock to the Saudi Royals when Saddam Hussein turned his attention to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. Again, the Royal family turned to the Ulema and obtained (with difficulty) a Fatwa, permitting the use of non-Muslim foreign troops on Saudi soil to defend Saudi Arabia against a foreign invader - one the Ulema regarded as a secular apostate. Thus the Saudi Royal family invited the USA to send it its troops for Operation Desert Storm- the operation to defend Saudi Arabia and liberate Kuwait - largely at Saudi expense." {1}.


As per 9/11 Commission Report “In August 1990, Iraq invaded Kuwait. Bin Ladin, whose efforts in Afghanistan had earned him celebrity and respect, proposed to the Saudi monarchy that he summon mujahideen for a jihad to retake Kuwait. He was rebuffed, and the Saudis joined the U.S.-led coalition. After the Saudis agreed to allow U.S. armed forces to be based in the Kingdom, Bin Ladin and a number of Islamic clerics began to publicly denounce the arrangement. The Saudi government exiled the clerics and undertook to silence Bin Ladin by, among other things, taking away his passport. With help from a dissident member of the royal family, he managed to get out of the country under the pretext of attending an Islamic gathering in Pakistan in April 1991.” {2}.

"After the liberation of Kuwait, the US forces did not leave.

In 1992, a group of 107 Wahhabi mullahs (clergy) sent a 46-page "Memorandum of Advice" to King Fahd, which criticized the government for corruption and human-rights abuses and for allowing U.S. troops on Saudi soil. The document advocated that the government follow a stricter adherence to sharia and repudiate relations with non-Western governments. King Fahd dismissed seven of the seventeen members of the country's highest clerical body, the Ulema, for refusing to denounce the memorandum. In 1994, prompted by the government's arrest of two dissident Wahhabi mullahs for anti-government preaching, several thousand protestors staged demonstrations in the Saudi town of Buraida. The mullahs had accused the monarchy of moral corruption (hardly deniable with any credibility) and of betraying Islam by allowing U.S. troops on the Saudi peninsula. Note that this was precisely the accusation that had been levelled by the Wahhabi against the Sherif of Mecca in the period between 1917 and 1924. It is thought that thousands were arrested after the demonstrations. Dissidence of whatever kind has always been ruthlessly suppressed by Saudi Authorities. The United States (and to a lesser extent the United Kingdom and the rest of Europe) have always ignored the problem. They were prepared to support the absolute monarchy and not raise problems about human rights abuses, provided that the oil kept flowing on reasonably favourable terms." {3}.

EUROLEGAL SERVICES WEB SITE - BIN LADEN – GULF WAR {1}, {2}, {3}.




"counsel of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that “since America came into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited.”


Background of Prince Turki


His stint at the GID, which came almost by chance due to the need to maintain a precarious balance of power among the various clans in the Saudi royal family, made him one of the longest lasting and authoritative intelligence chiefs in the world. Under Turki's leadership, the GID transformed into a modern intelligence service; as a member of the Safari Club (which brought together the intelligence chiefs of France, Morocco, Egypt, Arabia and Iran in an anti-Soviet effort during Washington's difficult Watergate phase), he exerted a determinant influence on Afghani events following the Soviet invasion of 1979. From 1980 onward, Turki committed the GID to the task of providing financial support for the mujahideen war effort against the Soviets, channeling vast amounts of funding to Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), subsidizing jihadis from all over the Middle East who wanted to participate in the anti-communist crusade, and assisting the efforts that the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was starting to make in the same direction. The impact of Turki's influence determined who was to prevail among the
Afghan leaders; his funding laid the foundations for the Islamic volunteer groups who fought in Afghanistan (giving rise to the formation of groups such as al-Qaeda) and enabled the ISI to attain such importance that it became a parallel government in Pakistan. It was Turki who made a deal with the CIA that Riyadh would supply the ISI with an amount equal to the funding provided by US intelligence, thus pouring huge sums of money onto the Afghan chessboard. Turki had known Osama bin Laden since 1978; bin Laden became one of the linchpins of the GID's funding policy toward the ISI and anti-Soviet warfare in Afghanistan, and he met with Turki several times in Islamabad. Many years afterward, in 1998, when bin Laden had already become engaged in an anti-American crusade, Turki was responsible for requesting his extradition by Taliban leader Mullah Omar, but did not succeed in this task.

Riyadh's new envoy just the US ticket By Giuseppe Anzera

Then we have the ‘side-show’ of the Iran-Contra affair:

Dirty and Flthy Past of Pathetic Cutthroat Irani Ayatullahs and Mullahs:

"[O]n the night of October 18, 1980, [Otto] Rupp flew Reagan-Bush campaign director William Casey from Washington's National Airport to the Le Bourget Airfield north of Paris for a series of secret meetings. According to Brenneke, it was at these meetings — held on October 19 and 20, at the Waldorf Florida and Crillon hotels--that members of the Reagan-Bush campaign secretly negotiated an "arms-for-no-hostages" deal with representatives of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The purpose of this Faustian pact, Brenneke said, was to prevent an "October Surprise" — the release of the hostages prior to the November elections — thereby ensuring President Carter's defeat. For their part, the Iranians allegedly received $40 million with which they could purchase badly needed American-made weapons and military spare parts for their war against Iraq."



T h e V e r d i c t i s T r e a s o n
=============================================

by David Armstrong and Alex Constantine Z Magazine, July/August 1990

[excerpts]


The May 4 acquittal of Richard Brenneke, the self-proclaimed CIA contract agent accused of lying to a federal grand jury about the 1980 Reagan-Bush campaign's efforts to delay the release of 52 American hostages then held in Iran, has cast a long shadow over Washington. Despite the modicum of attention the case has received in the mainstream press, its true implications-namely "treason," "perjury," and "impeachable offenses"- have yet to be fully addressed. Brenneke's story bears repeating. On September 23, 1988, Brenneke, a Portland, Oregon, property manager and arms dealer, voluntarily testified at the sentencing hearing of his "close friend," Heinrich Rupp, a gold dealer and former-Luftwaffe pilot who had been convicted of bank fraud in Colorado. During closed-door testimony before Judge James R. Carrigan, Brenneke told the Denver court that both he and Rupp had worked for the CIA on a contract basis since 1967, including flying planes for Air America, the CIA-owned front company in southeast asia. Moreover, Brenneke testified that Rupp believed he'd been "doing something the [CIA] asked him to do" when the fraud was committed.

To support his claim, Brenneke swore that both he and Rupp had been employed by the CIA to assist in covert operations on numerous occasions. One of these clandestine adventures, according to Brenneke, was a midnight flight to Paris in 1980.


=======================================
T h e O c t o b e r S u r p r i s e
=======================================


In his Denver deposition, Brenneke testified that on the night of October 18, 1980, Rupp flew Reagan-Bush campaign director William Casey from Washington's National Airport to the Le Bourget Airfield north of Paris for a series of secret meetings. According to Brenneke, it was at these meetings--held on October 19 and 20, at the Waldorf Florida and Crillon hotels--that members of the Reagan-Bush campaign secretly negotiated an "arms-for-no-hostages" deal with representatives of the Ayatollah Khomeini. The purpose of this Faustian pact, Brenneke said, was to prevent an "October Surprise"--the release of the hostages prior to the November
elections--thereby ensuring President Carter's defeat. For their part, the Iranians allegedly received $40 million with which they could purchase badly needed American-made weapons and military spare parts for their war against Iraq.

Brenneke testified that he had participated in the last of the three Paris meetings, working out the details of the cash and weapons transactions. Also present at this meeting, Brenneke said, was William Casey, who was eventually appointed Reagan's CIA director. It was in that latter capacity that Casey masterminded the arms-for-hostages deal with Iran that would eventually be known as the Iran-Contra scandal. Also in attendance at this remarkable meeting, according to Brenneke, was Donald Gregg, a CIA liaison to President Carter's National Security Council. Gregg, a CIA operative since 1951, later became National Security Advisor to Vice President George Bush, and is currently the US ambassador to South Korea. A third member of the American delegation in attendance at the Paris meetings, Brenneke told the court, was then-vice presidential hopeful George Bush. A month after his Denver testimony, Brenneke wrote a letter to Judge Carrigan amending his statement. In the letter, Brenneke explained that he had no first
hand knowledge of Bush being in Paris, but had been told by Rupp that Bush had been spotted on the tarmac at Le Bourget. When questioned on this point during his trial, Brenneke replied: "I simply repeated what I was told.... I disbelieved it then, and I disbelieve it now."


=============================================
B r e n n e k e ' s D a y i n C o u r t
=============================================



Eight months after his sworn statement in Denver, the US Justice Department charged Brenneke with five counts of making "false declarations" to a federal judge. The indictment alleged that Brenneke had knowingly lied when he said that both he and Rupp had worked for the CIA. The government also charged that Brenneke had concocted the entire story about Bush, Casey, Gregg and the "October Surprise" deal. Speculation at the time held that the indictment may have been timed to avoid political embarrassment. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Brenneke had publicly accused Gregg of directing the Contra resupply effort out of Vice President Bush's office. After assuming the presidency, Bush nominated Gregg to become the US ambassador to South Korea. Gregg's Senate confirmation hearings began on May 12, 1989, the same day Brenneke was indicted. The charges effectively prevented senators from raising Brenneke's accusations during the confirmation process. Furthermore, the Bush administration showed no real interest in taking Brenneke to trial. In fact, the prosecution offered Brenneke a deal that would keep him out of jail in exchange for a guilty plea. Despite having no money and suffering from a severe heart ailment, Brenneke refused the government's conditions. Brenneke's trial began on April 24, in federal district court in Portland, Oregon. Brenneke's attorney, Michael Scott, the brother of Rep. Patricia Schroeder, D-Colorado, had originally planned to subpoena a star- studded list of witnesses for the defense. Among the notables were former President Carter and former Iranian President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, both of whom have stated that they were aware of the Reagan-Bush campaign's hostage negotiations prior to the 1980 election.

Being broke, however, Brenneke was forced to rely on the government to pay the expenses of his witnesses. It was up to the court, therefore, to determine which witnesseswere necessary to his defense. Judge Malcolm F. Marsh--a Reagan appointee--had no trouble determining that Carter, Bani- Sadr, and Robert McFarlane were not. In fact, of the 24 potential witnesses presented by Brenneke lawyers, only five were deemed "necessary." Government prosecutor Thomas O'Rourke, the US attorney in Denver, suffered under no such burden. At taxpayers' expense O'Rourke assembled an impressive roster of government witnesses. Eldon Hatch, a CIA personnel specialist, testified that after thoroughly searching the agency's files he could find no
employment records for either Rupp or Brenneke. Under cross examination, however, Hatch admitted that Rupp had been trained by Inter- Mountain Aviation, a CIA proprietary. Hatch, a 31-year CIA veteran, also acknowledged that the agency had maintained "files" on both Rupp and Brenneke. Defense witness Frank Snepp, a former CIA agent and critic of the Agency, later testified that CIA contract agents were often listed in "Soft files" that "existed only in a clandestine part of the agency and were not shared with personnel because the [agent's] situation was so sensitive.



=============================
A S t a r i s S w o r n
=============================


The government's star witness was Donald Gregg, who was flown in from South Korea to testify. But Gregg has never been a credible witness. During the Congressional Iran-contra hearings, Gregg testified under oath that despite being vice President George Bush's National Security Adviser at the time, he had not learned of the Reagan Administration's efforts to resupply the Nicaraguan Contras until August 1986. During his Senate confirmation hearing in 1989, however, information surfaced that clearly contradicted Gregg's earlier statements. An entry in one of Oliver North's notebooks that somehow escaped the shredder indicates that Gregg attended a meeting on the illegal resupply operation in September 1985. In addition, a memo from Gregg's on office initialed by Gregg himself, reveals that on May 1, 1986, Gregg met with Vice President Bush to discuss "resupply of the Contras." Gregg attributed the discrepancy to a secretarial error, claiming the meeting had actually concerned "resupply of the Copters." A New York Times editorial a the time ran under the heading "Mr. Gregg Still Lacks Credibility."

During the Brenneke trial, Gregg swore he did not go to Paris on October 18, 1980, but had been vacationing with his family at Bethany Beach, Delaware. To prove his point, Gregg presented photographs of himself, his wife and their daughter, on a sunny beach that he said were taken on the weekend in question. Gregg's claims were easily disproved by Robert Lynott, a veteran meteorologist for the National Weather Service, the National Forest Service and a Portland TV station. After comparing the photographs with reports from the Indian River weather station--ten miles from Bethany Beach--Lynott concluded that "These pictures were not taken on those days. I'm 100 percent sure that they weren't taken on the 18th and I'm 90 percent sure they weren't taken on the 19th."

As for Bush and Casey, prosecutor O'Rourke failed to demonstrate that they could NOT have been in Paris on the relevant days. This inexplicable lack of accurate record keeping is all the more remarkable for a campaign manager and candidate at the height of a presidential race. More damning testimony came from Richard Allen, a former Reagan-Bush campaign official who later served as President Reagan's National Security adviser. Allen told the court that during the fall of 1980, he had set up a secret committee within the campaign to monitor the Carter Administration's progress in their hostage negotiations. Two internal campaign memos were presented as evidence to support Allen's testimony. The first, dated October 15, 1980, was from Allen to Reagan, Casey, campaign strategist Richard Wirthlin, and Edwin Meese III, who later became Reagan's attorney general. According to the memo, a person referred to as "ABC XYZ"had informed the campaign that the hostages could be freed "at any moment, as a bolt from the blue." Allen testified that "ABC XYZ" was in fact Edmund Muskie, who at the time was President Carter's secretary of state. [note Muskie served with John Tower and Brent Scowcroft on the presidential commission which investigated the Iran/Contra scandal. RW] A second memo, dated October 24, 1980, named Bob Garrick, a high ranking campaign official, as the sole spokesperson on the hostage issue. Another defense witness, Israeli Col. William Northrup, testified that American-made weapons were shipped to Iran via Israel "within a fortnight" of the Paris meetings, implying that they were part of the deal not to release the hostages. In his closing argument defense attorney Michael Scott stressed the timing of the hostages release which came on January 20, 1981, just minutes after Reagan was sworn in as president.


=====================
T h e V e r d i c t
=====================


On May 4, after only five hours of deliberation, the jury found Brenneke "not guilty" on all five counts. "We were convinced that, yes, there was a meeting, and he was there and the other people listed in the indictment were there," said jury foreman Mark Kristoff following the trial. "There never was a guilty vote ... It was 100 percent." While the jury's verdict represents a substantial victory for Brenneke personally, many questions remain unresolved. Technically, the decision does not mean Brenneke was telling the truth about the Paris meetings; it simply means the government was unable to convince the jury that he was lying. Still, there is a substantial body of circumstantial evidence suggesting that the Reagan-Bush campaign stole t e 1980 election, and the Brenneke decision adds even greater credence to that argument. At the very least it suggest the Republicans were willing to barter with American lives for their own political gain. Legally, any dealings between campaign officials and the Iranians would be a clear violation of the Logan Act, which prohibits private citizens from engaging in diplomatic negotiations with foreign governments. More important, since Iran could easily have been classified as a hostile nation at the time, any effort to furnish them with weapons would constitute providing aid to an enemy nation, which is tantamount to treason. Then there is the question of Donald Gregg's testimony. If, as the jury apparently believed, Gregg was not telling the truth about his whereabouts on that all important weekend in 1980, will the bush administration be as vigilant in seeking perjury charges against him as it was in prosecuting Brenneke?


=============================
E n t e r t h e S & L ' s
=============================


In addition to lifting the lid on the October Surprise, Brenneke's testimony in Denver shed light on another scandal. During his deposition, Brenneke stated that the bank fraud for which Rupp was convicted was actually part of a larger "systematically developed program by which money was raised for the Contras, using a variety of schemes involving banks, and then involving the disposition of those funds." Brenneke's comments became the center piece for a series of investigative reports by Pete Brewton of the Houston Post. Earlier this year, Brewton revealed that "the CIA may have used part of the proceeds from S&L fraud to help pay for covert operations and other activities that Congress was unwilling to support publicly." Brewton disclosed that "numerous links" exist "between organized crime figures and CIA operatives, including some involved in gun running, drug smuggling, money laundering, and covert aid for the Nicaraguan Contras." One example Brewton refers to is Indian Springs State Bank in Kansas City, Missouri. When Indian Springs failed in 1984, federal investigators focused their attention on Farhad Azima, a major shareholder in the bank. Azima, an Iranian emigrant who's family had close ties to the Shah, has been linked in court documents to the CIA and organized crime. Azima was also the owner of Global International Airways. Brewton reported that an ID card given to him by Brenneke, dated November 1, 1975, shows a vice president and pilot for global to be none other than Heinrich Rupp. Global supplied one of the cargo planes used by the White House to deliver 23 tons of TOW missiles and sundry spare parts to Tehran.


Among Global's clients was Southern Air Transport, once owned-and-operated by the CIA. Southern Air personnel maintain that Global ran weapons out of Dallas to the contras and cocaine back into the US. Global's biggest customer was the Egyptian American Transport and Services Corporation (EATSCO). EATSCO's board of directors included unindicted Iran-contra figure Theodore Shackley and convicted Iran-contra conspirator retired Gen. Richard Secord. The finances of Indian Springs Bank and Global were intimately intertwined. When Global filed for bankruptcy, Indian Springs was next in line.



=================================================================
I s T h e r e a R e p o r t e r i n t h e H o u s e ?
=================================================================



Mainstream coverage of the Brenneke trial and the CIA/Mafia/White House links to the S&L crisis have been conspicuously absent. Following the Brenneke decision, the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times and the Washington Post all ran short Associated Press wire stories but never mentioned the words "treason" or "perjury." Joel Bleifuss of In These Times writes: "The most interesting of the three AP stories was the heavily and strangely edited version in the Washington Post. It seems that if the jury didn't have sense enough to find Brenneke guilty, it was up to the Post to do the job."


Brewton's revelations concerning the S&L debacle have fared even worse. In February, the Los Angeles Times buried a short piece outlining Brewton's basic thesis, and has since failed to follow up on the allegations. To date, neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post have seen fit to report on the subject. Having been vindicated in court, Brenneke says he plans to write a book about his life in the CIA and the October Surprise. It will be interesting to see how the press responds when his story, which has been sitting right under their noses for four years, "breaks" in the book review section.


=============================
F u r t h e r R e a d i n g
=============================


=====================
S & L s c a n d a l
=====================


Pete Brewton's investigative articles in the Houston Post are (may be incomplete):


"S&L probe has possible CIA links" 2/4/90


"Evidence finds CIA operatives may be implicated in failure" 2/5/90


"[House] Panel calls CIA chief to testify" 2/6/90


"A bank's shadowy demise" 2/8/90


"Azima no stranger to Texas business" 2/(between 8 and 11)/90


"Linsay aided S&L probe figure" 2/11/90


"Texas S&L, mob, CIA: A tangled web of deceit" 2/18/90


"CIA declines to testify before [House] panel" 2/21/90


"House committee plans investigation of agency's actions" 3/2/90


"The suspicious trail of Denver S&L failure" 3/11/90


"Attorney linked to S&L crisis has ties to CIA, Mafia figures" 4/4/90



"House investigators pursue Post's S&L findings" 7/11/90



also "The news story hardly anyone wants to touch" by Nicols Fox, July/August Washington Journalism Review also see the book "Inside Job" by Steve Pizzo, Mary Fricker & Paul Molo

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (note: as of mid November, 1990, the staff of the House Intelligence committee is about to make a recommendation as to whether to pursue a formal investigation of the Post's allegations)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- - - - -

=========================================
C I A & d r u g s m u g g l i n g :
=========================================



"Is there a contra drug connection?" Newsweek, 1/26/87


"Contra arms crew said to smuggle drugs" New York Times, 1/20/87


"Bay area cocaine ring tied to contras" San Francisco Examiner, 3/16/86


"Nicaraguan exile's cocaine-contra connection" SF Examiner, 6/23/86


"Probe tracks contra smuggling, US role" Chicago Tribune, 3/3/87


"Narco-terrorism: A tale of two stories" Columbia Journalism Rev, Sept/Oct 87


"Pilot: I flew contra arms in, pot out" Newsday, 4/6/87


"Obstruction at justice" The Village Voice, 3/31/87


"Memo urged Iran panels to absolve contras of drug charges" Boston Globe 8/5/87


"North's aids linked to Austrialia study" New York Times, 3/8/87


"CIA, contras hooked on drug money" In These Times, 4/15/87


=================
A l s o s e e :
=================


New York Times 2/24/87, 7/16/87


Washington Post 12/27/85, 6/30/87


Wall St. Journal 4/22/87


Miami Herald 2/16/87, 3/22/87


Los Angeles Times 2/12/87, 2/18/87


CBS News West 57th, contra drug reports aired 4/6/87 and 7/11/87


Related books:

"Out of Control" by Leslie Cockburn, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1987


"The Crimes of Patriots" by Jonathan Kwitney, Norton, 1987


"The Iran Contra Connection" by Johnathan Marshall, Peter Scott, Jane Hunter, South End Press, 1987


"The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia" by Alfred W. McCoy, Harper & Row, 1972


"The Great Heroin Coup" by Henrik Kruger, South End Press, 1980


"In Banks We Trust" by Penny Lernoux, Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1984