This notion—that one man and his fanatical followers are responsible for major attacks on the United States--when applied to Shaykh Omar and the terrorism attributedto him is demonstrably false. This is particularly significant, because our understandingof the early terrorism attributed to the blind cleric, including the 1993 World TradeCenter bombing, set the stage for understanding subsequent acts of terrorism in a similar fashion.The erroneous, widely-held view regarding Shaykh Omar comes from amisunderstanding of the charges against him and a lack of attention to the court records.An FBI undercover operation emerged after the February 26, 1993, bombing of theWorld Trade Center, with an Egyptian informant, Emad Salem, acting as agent provocateur. A Sudanese émigré, Siddig Ali, proposed a bombing plot to Salem, whichgrew to encompass the United Nations, New York’s Federal building, and other targets.The individuals involved in this plot were not very competent. The expertise tomake the bombs, such that it was, came from the FBI informant. He directed theconspirators to buy fertilizer for their ANFO bombs, and they returned from a Manhattangarden store with $150 worth of Scotts Super Turf Builder. That material does not haveenough ammonium nitrate to produce an explosive, as an FBI agent testified during thetrial.The conspirators in this plot were arrested on the morning of June 24, 1993, whenthe FBI had sufficient evidence against them, including video of their mixing what they believed to be explosives. Meanwhile, Shaykh Omar had come to public attentionfollowing the Trade Center bombing. As head of Egypt’s largest Islamic terrorist group,he was banned from entry into the United States. He had recently been ordered deported, but was free, as he appealed that order. The FBI tried to get Shaykh Omar in itsundercover operation, but he was not really interested in attacking New York. He wantedto kill the president of Egypt and seize power there. Thus, Shaykh Omar was not arrestedwith the other conspirators.Following revelation of this second bombing plot, New York politicianscomplained of the dangers Shaykh Omar posed. He was soon detained on the ironicgrounds that he posed a flight risk, as he appealed his deportation. Once imprisoned,Shaykh Omar began to suggest he might accept deportation, but the U.S. Attorney’sOffice in Manhattan had meanwhile developed a subtle legal strategy for indicting andconvicting him. The FBI opposed that indictment (it wanted to deport him), but AttorneyGeneral Janet Reno made the decision to proceed.Seditious conspiracy was a key charge against the blind cleric, “Conspiracy toWage A War of Urban Terrorism,” and this has contributed to a major confusion. 7 The prosecution postulated that a “Jihad Organization” had emerged in New York and ShaykhOmar was one of its principal leaders. The “Jihad Organization” was a legal constructiondeveloped solely for the purpose of this trial. A number of violent acts were attributed tothe “Jihad Organization,” of which the Trade Center bombing was the most lethal.Once a conspiracy is found to exist, all members of the conspiracy are legallyresponsible for all actions of all other conspirators, whether they know about thoseactions in advance or even whether they know the individuals who commit them. Thus,the prosecution told the jury, “I am not going to stand up here and tell you that defendant[Shaykh Omar] Abdel Rahman picked up the phone, called overseas and ordered Ramzi Yousef to show up.” However, Yousef “came from the same channel, the same group of people involved with jihad, the same jihad, and the same enemy, America” as ShaykhOmar and the other defendants. 8
Thus, Ramzi Yousef was said to be a member of the “Jihad Organization.” Heneed never have met or spoken with Shaykh Omar. And he could be a highly-trainedforeign intelligence agent who penetrated and used the Islamic militants for his own purposes. But that would be
completely and entirely
irrelevant to the question of theguilt or innocence of Shaykh Omar et al. That may sound strange, but that, in fact, isentirely consistent with U.S. federal laws.There is also a crucial legal distinction between a “count” and an “overt act.” Acount is a crime charged against a defendant, about which a jury decides guilty or innocent. An overt act is an action taken in furtherance of a conspiracy. Often overt actsare not crimes in themselves, and therefore, not charged as counts. The World TradeCenter bombing is an overt act in the conspiracy attributed to Shaykh Omar et al,, but it isnot charged as a substantive count, because other people— not Shaykh Omar or the other defendants in his trial --carried out that attack.This is the official U.S. position. As the prosecuting U.S. Attorney explained, “Nodefendant in the
Rahman
trial was charged with executing the World Trade Center bombing. The bombing was charged as an overt act of the conspiracy count in the
Rahman
case, and none of the
Rahman
defendants are named in that overt act.”
The widespread misunderstanding that Shaykh Omar was behind the Trade Center bombing comes from this legal proceeding. This confusion has been compounded because a number of those involved in this case misrepresent it. FBI director, LouisFreeh, testifying before the 9/11 Commission, for example, did not correct the impressionthat Shaykh Omar was behind the Trade Center bombing, and he portrayed the second bombing conspiracy--the FBI undercover operation--as being akin to the Trade Center bombing, claiming that the FBI had thwarted a plot that would have caused massivedestruction. That is simply not true, as the court record makes clear.Criminal trials do not generally address state sponsorship. This point cannot beover-emphasized. The focus of a trial is to determine the guilt or innocence of individualdefendants, according to very formal, well-established procedures. Thus, it is alsoirrelevant to the case of Shaykh Omar et al. whether or not a terrorist state was involvedthe Trade Center bombing (senior figures in New York FBI, the lead investigativeagency, believed Iraq was behind the attack.)Two intelligence agents posted to Sudan’s U.N. mission became involved in thesecond bombing plot. That is clear from the trial transcript. They had extensive contactswith the ringleader (Siddig Ali) and a Sudanese intelligence agent was to provide thediplomatic plates to get the bomb-laden vehicle into the U.N. parking garage. The twoSudanese agents were never indicted, however, because the judgment was made thatSudan would not agree to lift their diplomatic immunity. Their involvement is likewiseirrelevant to the guilt or innocence of Shaykh Omar et al.The notion that one man and his fanatical devotees are solely responsible for major terrorist attacks against the United States has its origins in a misunderstanding of a legal proceeding, in which the key national security question regarding the potentialinvolvement of a foreign intelligence agency in those attacks was completely irrelevant.