In Pursuit of Justice, and a Connection 
By JULIA PRESTON 
Could Moussaoui have stopped 9-11? 

Monday, March 6, 2006. 

The Washington Post

The Ground Zero Scandal
New York Sun Staff Editorial
March 9, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/28868 
In the grand scheme of things three and a half years may be but the blink of an eye, but for New Yorkers who walk by the hole at ground zero every day, it has been far too long a wait for a deal resolving the fate of the site. News that such a deal may require spending $6 billion in public funds on digging a tunnel from New Jersey to Midtown Manhattan, as our David Lombino reports today, only underscores how frustrating the whole matter has been to New Yorkers. Just consider what has transpired since terrorists felled the World Trade Center. 
Congress provided $8 billion in Liberty Bonds, giving developers the opportunity to finance redevelopment projects with triple-tax-exempt debt. It was left to the governor and the mayor to find ways to divvy up the bonds, which they happily did, although not necessarily for projects in keeping with what American taxpayers had in mind. For example, the developer of Bank of America's new building at Bryant Park, on 42nd Street, benefited from $650 million of Liberty Bond financing for a project that was neither damaged during the September 11 attacks nor even in Lower Manhattan. 
Meantime, Goldman Sachs, which didn't deign to move to ground zero itself but whose $38-million-a-year chief executive was willing to build nearby, managed to extract from the city and state $1.6 billion of Liberty Bond financing. Federal downtown rebuilding money has been sprinkled on the National Museum of the American Indian, which is at Bowling Green and received $1.5 million, according to yesterday's New York Times, and the Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side, which is getting $1 million. The South Ferry subway station is being rebuilt at a cost of $450 million in public funds, though it was hardly damaged by the September 11 attacks. 
Meanwhile, those organizing the memorial to those killed at ground zero are being asked to resort to private fundraising. It's a scandal - downtown rebuilding money for Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, the Museum of the American Indian, and the South Ferry subway station, but Larry Silverstein, who bought a 99-year lease to the trade center site fair and square, is being forced to practically beg for rebuilding money he needs, and the families of victims are being asked to raise money privately for a memorial. 
This story is more about the dangers of throwing around large quantities of federal tax dollars than about anything else. The availability of so much "free" money - at least free to the politicians themselves, although certainly not to the taxpayers who elect them - has distorted and delayed the debate over ground zero. That debate, in turn, has led to a delay of years, not months, in redeveloping ground zero itself. Mr. Silverstein likes to note that while ground zero has been mired in bureaucratic strife, he is ready to sign leases on 7 World Trade Center, a site across the street that was also destroyed but that the private sector, in the person of Mr. Silverstein, has already succeeded in building. Yet Mr. Silverstein's is not the only private-sector vision for Lower Manhattan; private developers are already realizing the mayor's dream of a 24/7 residential neighborhood around Lower Manhattan by converting obsolete office space into apartments. 
An ordinary marketplace would allow many competing visionaries to bring their dreams to life and over time individual people and firms would choose their preferences. At ground zero, alas, this has not happened. A combination of factors, from the Port Authority's ownership of the site to the role of Liberty Bond financing in redevelopment to the emotional stakes, have hindered building on the site for three and a half years. With luck, New Yorkers may be near the end now and the cranes will start going up soon. The lesson, however, will remain. Far from making things better, the government succeeded in showing how to waste money.
Bush Speaks After Signing Patriot Act
CQ Transcriptions
Thursday, March 9, 2006; 3:27 PM
MARCH 9, 2006 
SPEAKER: GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
[*] 
BUSH: Welcome. Thanks for the applause. 
Glad you're here in the people's house. 
In a few moments I'll be signing the USA Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act. 
This is a really important piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people. 
The law allows our intelligence and law enforcement officials to continue to share information. It allows them to continue to use tools against terrorists that they use against drug dealers and other criminals. It will improve our nation's security while we safeguard the civil liberties of our people. 
The legislation strengthens the Justice Department so it can better detect and disrupt terrorist threats. And the bill gives law enforcement new tools to combat threats to our citizens, from international terrorists to local drug dealers. 
It is an important piece of legislation and I thank those here who helped get it passed. 
I particularly want to thank the attorney general, Al Gonzales. It's good to see the former attorney general is here as well. 
BUSH: I appreciate Secretary Mike Chertoff, Secretary John Snow, Ambassador Negroponte, Bob Mueller, thank you all for coming. 
John Walters, I appreciate you being here. 
I particularly want to thank the members of the Congress who are up here, starting with the speaker of the house, Denny Hastert. 
Mr. Speaker, thanks for your leadership. This is an important piece of legislation. 
I do want to pay special tribute to Senator Arlen Specter and Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner. These are the chairmen of the Judiciary Committees that got this legislation to this desk. Thank you all for your hard work. I appreciate your being here. 
I want to thank Pat Roberts who is with us, John Boehner, the majority leader, Roy Blunt, the majority whip. And I want to thank all the other members of the Congress who joined us, particularly Peter King, who's the chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee. 
I want to thank all the state and local officials who are here. 
Chief Ramsey, it's good to see you. Appreciate your -- always be good to the local police chief. 
(LAUGHTER) 
America remains a nation at war. The war reached our shores on September the 11th, 2001. On that morning, we saw clearly the violence and hatred of a new enemy. We saw the terrorists' destructive vision for us when they killed nearly 3,000 men, women and children. 
In the face of this ruthless threat, our nation has made a clear choice. We will confront this mortal danger, we will stay on the offensive and we're not going to wait to be attacked again. 
Since September the 11th, 2001, we have taken the fight to the enemy. We're hunted terrorists in the mountains of Afghanistan, the cities of Iraq, the islands of southeast Asia and everywhere else they plot, plan and train. 
Our men and women in uniform have brought down two regimes that supported terrorism. They liberated 50 million people. We've gained new allies in the war on terror. 
BUSH: As we wage the war on terror overseas, we're also going after the terrorists here at home. 
And one of the most important tools we have used to protect the American people is the Patriot Act. 
The Patriot Act closed dangerous gaps in America's law enforcement and intelligence capabilities, gaps the terrorists exploited when they attacked us on September 11th. 
The Patriot Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. It strengthened our national security in two important ways. 
First, it authorized law enforcement and intelligence officers to share vital information. 
Before the Patriot Act, criminal investigators were often separated from intelligence officers by a legal and bureaucratic wall. The Patriot Act tore down the wall. And as a result, law enforcement and intelligence officers are sharing information, working together and bringing terrorists to justice. 
Secondly, the Patriot Act has allowed agents to pursue terrorists with the same tools they use against other criminals. 
Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to track the phone contacts of a drug dealer than the phone contacts of an enemy operative. 
Before the Patriot Act, it was easier to get the credit card receipts of a tax cheater than trace the financial support of an Al Qaida fund raiser. 
The Patriot Act corrected these double standards and the United States is safer as a result. 
Over the past four years, America's law enforcement and intelligence personnel have proved that the Patriot Act works. 
Federal, state and local law enforcement have used the Patriot Act to break up terror cells in Ohio, New York, Oregon and Virginia. We've prosecuted terrorist operatives and supporters in California and Texas, New Jersey, Illinois, Washington and North Carolina. 
The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do. It has helped us detect terror cells, disrupt terrorist plots and save American lives. 
The bill I sign today extends these vital provisions. 
It also gives our nation new protections and added defenses. 
This legislation creates a new position of assistant attorney general for national security. This will allow the Justice Department to bring together its national security, counterterrorism, counterintelligence and foreign intelligence surveillance operations under a single authority. 
This reorganization fulfills one of the critical recommendations of the WMD commission. It will help our brave men and women in law enforcement connect the dots before the terrorists strike. 
This bill also will help protect Americans from the growing threat of methamphetamine. 
Meth is easy to make, it is highly addictive, it is ruining too many lives across our country. 
The bill introduces common-sense safeguards that would make many of the ingredients used in manufacturing meth harder to obtain in bulk and easier for law enforcement to track. 
For example, the bill places limits on large-scale purchases of over-the-counter drugs that are used to manufacture meth. It requires stores to keep these ingredients behind the counter or in locked display cases. 
BUSH: The bill also increases penalties for snuggling and selling of meth. Our nation is committed to protecting our citizens and our young people from the scourge of methamphetamine. 
The Patriot Act has served America well, yet we cannot let the fact that America has not been attacked since September the 11th lull us into the illusion that the terrorist threat has disappeared. We still face dangerous enemies. The terrorists haven't lost the will or the ability to kill innocent folks. 
Our military law enforcement, homeland security and intelligence professionals are working day and night to protect us from this threat. We're safer for their efforts. We will continue to give them the tools to get the job done. 
And now, it's my honor to sign the Usa Patriot Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. 
END 

The Ground Zero Scandal
New York Sun Staff Editorial
March 9, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/28868 
In the grand scheme of things three and a half years may be but the blink of an eye, but for New Yorkers who walk by the hole at ground zero every day, it has been far too long a wait for a deal resolving the fate of the site. News that such a deal may require spending $6 billion in public funds on digging a tunnel from New Jersey to Midtown Manhattan, as our David Lombino reports today, only underscores how frustrating the whole matter has been to New Yorkers. Just consider what has transpired since terrorists felled the World Trade Center. 
Congress provided $8 billion in Liberty Bonds, giving developers the opportunity to finance redevelopment projects with triple-tax-exempt debt. It was left to the governor and the mayor to find ways to divvy up the bonds, which they happily did, although not necessarily for projects in keeping with what American taxpayers had in mind. For example, the developer of Bank of America's new building at Bryant Park, on 42nd Street, benefited from $650 million of Liberty Bond financing for a project that was neither damaged during the September 11 attacks nor even in Lower Manhattan. 
Meantime, Goldman Sachs, which didn't deign to move to ground zero itself but whose $38-million-a-year chief executive was willing to build nearby, managed to extract from the city and state $1.6 billion of Liberty Bond financing. Federal downtown rebuilding money has been sprinkled on the National Museum of the American Indian, which is at Bowling Green and received $1.5 million, according to yesterday's New York Times, and the Tenement Museum on the Lower East Side, which is getting $1 million. The South Ferry subway station is being rebuilt at a cost of $450 million in public funds, though it was hardly damaged by the September 11 attacks. 
Meanwhile, those organizing the memorial to those killed at ground zero are being asked to resort to private fundraising. It's a scandal - downtown rebuilding money for Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, the Museum of the American Indian, and the South Ferry subway station, but Larry Silverstein, who bought a 99-year lease to the trade center site fair and square, is being forced to practically beg for rebuilding money he needs, and the families of victims are being asked to raise money privately for a memorial. 
This story is more about the dangers of throwing around large quantities of federal tax dollars than about anything else. The availability of so much "free" money - at least free to the politicians themselves, although certainly not to the taxpayers who elect them - has distorted and delayed the debate over ground zero. That debate, in turn, has led to a delay of years, not months, in redeveloping ground zero itself. Mr. Silverstein likes to note that while ground zero has been mired in bureaucratic strife, he is ready to sign leases on 7 World Trade Center, a site across the street that was also destroyed but that the private sector, in the person of Mr. Silverstein, has already succeeded in building. Yet Mr. Silverstein's is not the only private-sector vision for Lower Manhattan; private developers are already realizing the mayor's dream of a 24/7 residential neighborhood around Lower Manhattan by converting obsolete office space into apartments. 
An ordinary marketplace would allow many competing visionaries to bring their dreams to life and over time individual people and firms would choose their preferences. At ground zero, alas, this has not happened. A combination of factors, from the Port Authority's ownership of the site to the role of Liberty Bond financing in redevelopment to the emotional stakes, have hindered building on the site for three and a half years. With luck, New Yorkers may be near the end now and the cranes will start going up soon. The lesson, however, will remain. Far from making things better, the government succeeded in showing how to waste money.

President George W Bush has said opposition in the US to a deal giving a Dubai-based company control of six US ports sends a bad signal to allies. 
Mr Bush said the United Arab Emirates was a "valued and strategic partner" in the US-led war on terrorism. 
Dubai Ports World has agreed to cede control of US ports acquired in its takeover of P&O to a "US entity". 
Its move followed an outcry among US lawmakers worried the deal would create a greater threat of terrorism. 
But it has now emerged that a second Dubai-owned firm is already providing shipping services in the US. 
Congress opposition 
Mr Bush told a conference of the National Newspaper Association that the US needed allies like the UAE. 
"They are a key partner for our military in a critical region, and outside of our own country, Dubai services more of our military, military ships, than any country in the world," he said. 
Mr Bush added: "In order to win the war on terror we have got to strengthen our friendships and relationships with moderate Arab countries in the Middle East." 
But the president admitted Congress was "still very much opposed" to the deal. 
Lawmakers have threatened to block the takeover on security grounds. 
They have called for a comprehensive review of ownership of key transport assets, despite the concession from Dubai Ports World. 
The company has not explicitly said it will sell the subsidiaries responsible for US ports, although the White House has suggested that this will be the end result. 
Trade experts agreed with Mr Bush that the Dubai Ports World saga would set a damaging precedent for other Middle Eastern firms planning to invest in the US. 
"It is just assuming that if a company is from the Middle East it is de facto disqualified from investing in the United States, and I think that is a terrible message to send," said Daniel Griswold, director of the Cato Institute's Centre for Trade Policy Studies. 
The other company - Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS) - has been owned since January by the United Arab Emirates investment firm Istithmar. 
ISS, whose clients include the US Navy, has had extensive interests in the US for many years. 
It arranges pilots, tugs and dock workers for shipping companies and works with the US Customs to ensure the smooth arrival and departure of vessels at ports such as New York, New Jersey and San Francisco. 

President Signs Reauthorized Patriot Act
On Thursday, President George W. Bush signed a reauthorized version of the USA Patriot Act only hours before some controversial provisions were set to expire. Bush called the Patriot Act: "A piece of legislation that's vital to win the war on terror and to protect the American people... It will improve our nation's security while we safeguard the civil liberties of our people," in his signing ceremony statement. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/artman/publish/homeland_security/article_002694.php The legislation was reauthorized over the objections of some lawmakers and advocacy groups who say it grants too much surveillance and subpoena power to the federal government. To achieve reauthorization of the legislation, which he considers vital to the war on terror, Bush was forced to accept new curbs on the Patriot Act's powers. One new civil liberties protection for the first time says explicitly that people who receive subpoenas granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for library, medical, computer and other records can challenge a gag order in court. But some critics say these safeguards do not go far enough. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI), who led opposition to renewal, called the bill "deeply flawed" despite the changes. "Today marks, sadly, a missed opportunity to protect both the national security needs of this country and the rights and freedoms of its citizens," he is quoted in a Reuters article. http://www.voicesofsept11.org/artman/publish/homeland_security/article_002696.php According to President Bush, who has pushed hard for more expansive executive powers in the fight against terrorism said that: "the Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do. It has helped us detect terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots and save American lives" as quoted in an Associated Press article.http://www.voicesofsept11.org/artman/publish/homeland_security/article_002695.php

Friday, March 10, 2006; 1:14 AM
WASHINGTON -- A day before parts of the USA Patriot Act were to expire, President Bush signed into law a renewal that will allow the government to keep using terror-fighting tools passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Bush's signature came two days after the House gave final approval to the legislation over objections that it infringes on Americans' privacy. The president said the law has been vital to protecting Americans from terrorists.
"The Patriot Act has accomplished exactly what it was designed to do," Bush said during a signing ceremony in the White House East Room. "It has helped us detect terrorist cells, disrupt terrorist plots and save American lives."
Sixteen provisions of the old law were set to expire Friday. Political battles over the legislation forced Congress to extend the expiration date twice.
To get the legislation renewed, Bush was forced to accept new curbs on the Patriot Act's powers.
These new civil liberties protections for the first time say explicitly that people who receive subpoenas granted under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act for library, medical, computer and other records can challenge a gag order in court.
Some say the protections did not go far enough.
"Today marks, sadly, a missed opportunity to protect both the national security needs of this country and the rights and freedoms of its citizens," said Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis.
But Republicans want to take the law into the upcoming midterm elections to show they are acting to protect national security.
The legislation renews the expiring provisions of the original Patriot Act, including one that lets federal officials obtain "tangible items," such as business records, from libraries and bookstores, in connection with foreign intelligence and international terrorism investigations.
Other provisions clarify that foreign intelligence or counterintelligence officers should share information obtained as part of a criminal investigation with counterparts in domestic law enforcement agencies.
Yet another provision is designed to strengthen port security by imposing strict punishments on crew members who impede or mislead law enforcement officers trying to board their ships.
The law also takes aim at the methamphetamine trade by imposing new restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter cold and allergy medicines, which contain a key ingredient for the drug. Customers will be limited to buying 300 30-milligram pills in a month or 120 such pills in a day. The measure would make an exception for "single-use" sales _ individually packaged pseudoephedrine products.
By Sept. 30, retailers will be required to sell such medicines from behind the counter and purchasers would have to show ID and sign log books.
"Meth is easy to make," the president said. "It is highly addictive. It is ruining too many lives across our country. The bill introduces commonsense safeguards that would make many of the ingredients used in manufacturing meth harder to obtain in bulk, and easier for law enforcement to track."

Thu Mar 9, 2006 8:18 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush signed a renewal of the USA Patriot Act on Thursday, hailing it as vital to the war on terrorism, but a key congressional critic said it lacked adequate safeguards for civil liberties.
Passage had been blocked for months by a battle with Congress over how to balance Americans' right to privacy with a need to foil security threats in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks that gave rise to the original Patriot Act.
The White House won approval from lawmakers after agreeing to revisions along with a companion bill that sponsors said would better protect civil liberties under the act.
The fight came down to the wire, with the bill reaching Bush's desk as 16 major provisions of the old law were due to expire on Friday.
The White House signing ceremony came against the backdrop of a move to end a political firestorm over Bush's support for a state-owned Arab company taking over U.S. port operations.
Dubai Ports World pledged on Thursday to transfer operation of six U.S. port terminals to a U.S. entity, a move the White House said should settle the controversy surrounding the deal.
Critics had pointed to the contrast between Bush's hawkish stance in his push for the Patriot Act's extension and what they saw as a lax view of security risks in the ports deal.
Enacted shortly after the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington, the Patriot Act expanded powers to obtain private records, conduct wiretaps and searches and share information. Critics said it went too far in infringing on basic rights.
Saying that "America remains a nation at war," Bush called renewal of the act essential. "It will improve our nation's security while we safeguard the civil liberties of our people," he said.
Bush's signature made 14 of the Patriot Act's provisions permanent and extended two others by four years. He said renewal allowed law enforcement to continue "pursuing terrorists with the same tools they use against other criminals."
'DEEPLY FLAWED'
Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who led opposition to renewal, called the bill "deeply flawed."
"Today marks, sadly, a missed opportunity to protect both the national security needs of this country and the rights and freedoms of its citizens," he said in a statement.
Feingold vowed to continue efforts to enact more safeguards on civil liberties.
Addressing Republicans in Georgia later on Thursday, Bush defended his administration's controversial program of domestic spying, saying it had been limited in scope and aimed at eavesdropping on al Qaeda operatives.
Bush, whose approval ratings have been hovering near the lows for his presidency, pressed national security as a key theme for his party in this election year, saying that "our biggest job" was to protect Americans against threats.
Republicans seeking to polish their national security credentials before November's midterm congressional elections said renewal of the Patriot Act was needed to help law enforcement agencies protect America from further attacks.
Legislation had been held up by Democrats and a few Republicans who demanded greater assurances on rights. A compromise won final congressional approval on Tuesday.
One change clarifies that libraries will not be subjected to federal subpoenas issued without the approval of a judge. Another removes a proposed requirement that recipients of such subpoenas provide the FBI with the names of their lawyers.
A third allows individuals to challenge gag orders when they have been subpoenaed to produce personal information. They would have to wait a year to do so.
(Additional reporting by Tabassum Zakaria in College Park, Georgia, and Thomas Ferraro in Washington)

Highlights and Impressions of the Moussaoui Trial

Highlights and Impressions of the Moussaoui Trial

Week One, March 6-9

The trial of Zacarias Moussaoui began in U. S. District Court in Alexandria, VA, on March 6, 2006.  Moussaoui, a French citizen of Moroccan heritage, was arrested on August 16, 2001, in Minnesota on immigration charges and was subsequently charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism in the United States.

Moussaoui has admitted to lying to the FBI.  He pleaded guilty in April, 2005, to being part of an al Qaeda conspiracy to fly planes into buildings in America, but he did not admit to being part of the September 11^th plot.   

The trial has two phases. First, the jury will first decide whether Moussaoui is eligible for the death penalty.  If the jury decides that the death penalty is warranted, the second phase will include impact statements from 9/11 family members and additional testimony.  If the jury finds Moussaoui ineligible for the death penalty, the trial will stop and Moussaoui will be remanded to prison for life.

To obtain the death penalty, the US Attorney must prove that, if Moussaoui had not lied, federal agents could have prevented at least one death in the September 11^th terrorist attacks.  Prosecutors contend that under American law, once Moussaoui was arrested, he was obligated to tell the truth. 

The defense position is that the Fifth Amendment protects Moussaoui from self-incrimination. 

During the proceedings this week before Judge Leonie Brinkema, the prosecution introduced an exhaustive number of exhibits to substantiate its account of Moussaoui’s activities and the testimony of witnesses. 

Prosecutors have tried to establish that Moussaoui was following the same pattern
as the hijackers.  Like the hijackers, he possessed multiple copies of identification documents, took flight lessons, bought short bladed knives, and worked out at the gym. Moussaoui also received money from the same sources as the hijackers and through the same channels.

Based on its opening statement and cross examination of government witnesses, it appears that the court appointed defense team is attempting to establish that 1) Moussaoui did not know enough about the planned attacks to be helpful; 2) the US government had a lot of information suggesting the possibility of a terrorist attack using airplanes, and it should have realized bin Laden’s plan when Moussaoui was caught attending flight school; and 3) Moussaoui was a bumbling incompetent.  

To make that point, the defense pointed out that Moussaoui left an incriminating receipt for a Pakistani hotel in his passport, something that FBI terrorism expert Michael Anticev admitted under cross examination that the scrupulously trained hijackers would not have done.  The hotel receipt was significant because in order to access terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, al Qaeda members routinely entered Afghanistan from Pakistan. To eliminate any evidence trail of terrorist training or meetings in Afghanistan, al Qaeda terrorists routinely applied for new travel documents to replace those with a Pakistani entry stamp.

The first witnesses called by the prosecution were FBI Special Agent James Fitzgerald who described the investigation of the plot since September 11^th and FBI expert Anticev who testified about al Qaeda’s tradecraft.  Under cross examination, Fitzgerald admitted that the FBI has been unable to link Moussaoui directly with any of the hijackers. Earlier he had cited indirect links.

In addition to witness testimony, the prosecution showed several chilling video statements by bin Laden and other al Qaeda leaders, and an al Qaeda training film.  

On Wednesday, the prosecution played a 2002 videotaped deposition of cooperating witness, Fauzi Bafana, who was arrested in Malaysia for plotting to attack a US military target.  Bafana was a member of Southeast Asia’s Jemaah Islamiyah ( JI). JI is a terrorist group linked to al Qaeda.  Bafana hosted Moussaoui, known to him as “John,” in his Kuala Lumpur home in 1999.  Banfana testified that “John” had told him that he had a dream of flying a plane into the White House and that “John” had told the Sheik [Osama bin Laden] of his dream.  The Sheik told “John” to go ahead and do it.  

During the deposition, Bafana identified Moussaoui as “John.”  Ironically, Moussaoui, acting as his own attorney, inadvertently confirmed it while he was cross examining Bafana.  Both the witness and Moussaoui spoke English.  Moussaoui was surprisingly fluent and articulate. 

Thursday’s witnesses included Moussaoui’s flight instructor at Airman Flight School in Norman, OK,  flight instructor Clarence Prevost Pan Am Flight Academy in Eagan, MN, and FBI Special agent Harry Samit of the Minneapolis office.  

Agent Samit began an investigation of Moussaoui after being alerted by the Pan Am Flight Academy at the insistence of Prevost.   Flight instructor Prevost became suspicious of Moussaoui for several reasons:  Moussaoui was enrolled in a flight school program for large jets even though he had never soloed on a small aircraft and did not have a pilot’s license;  Moussaoui’s belligerently shouted the response, “ I am nothing” when asked if he was a Muslim; and he paid his tuition using $100 bills.  

After speaking with Prevost, the FBI agent suspected that Moussaoui was involved in a plot against commercial airlines. If Moussaoui had successfully completed the flight simulator training program in which he was enrolled, he would have been able to input a navigation program into a cockpit computer for any for a Boeing 747, 757 and 767. The computer would then automatically fly the plane to the destination Moussaoui had chosen.  The only thing the computer does not control is the take off and landing, but in the case on of an in-flight suicide hijacking, a terrorist would not need those skills.

Agent Samit applied to FBI headquarters for a criminal search warrant to search Moussaoui’s belongings. When that was denied, he applied to headquarters for a FISA warrant, which was also denied.  Describing himself as obsessed, Agent Samit tried another tactic — extraditing Moussaoui to France. France had expressed an interest in Moussaoui and had promised to search his belongings upon arrival.  Agent Samit was finalizing the extradition when the terrorists struck.

Thursday, after the jury had been excused, the defense filed a motion for mistrial.  
Moussaoui's lawyers angrily charged that the prosecution was asking leading questions designed to improperly influence the jury.  Judge Brinkman denied the motion.  She warned both sides that she had been very patient and allowed both sides leeway which she would most likely not permit next week.

The trial will resume on Monday, March 13.

Submitted by Carol Ashley, mother of Janice Ashley, 25, WTC 93^rd floor
Carol is viewing the trial via closed circuit telecast at the Federal Courthouse 
in Central Islip, Long Island, New York.

Carol Ashley, mother of Janice Ashley, 25, WTC 93^rd floor

To All 9/11 Families, Friends and Supporters:
On January 24, 2006 the LMDC Family Advisory Council (FAC) met with LMDC President Stephan Pryor and WTC Memorial Foundation President Gretchen Dykstra as well as several members of their staff. At this meeting numerous issues were discussed including: the proper listing of the Names; putting Artifacts like the sphere and tower facades at the street level of the WTC site; preserving the Footprints; moving the Memorial Museum above ground; and the security and safety of visitors to the site. LMDC President Pryor and his representatives were noncommittal in their response to the concerns raised. 
On February 27, 2006, the Advocates for a 9/11 Fallen Heroes Memorial with support of the NYPD and FDNY unions held a rally at the WTC site demanding that the LMDC address the issues outlined above as well as the issue of raising the Memorial itself above ground.
A week after the rally and 6 weeks after the FAC meeting, LMDC President Pryor chose to respond to the concerns in a letter addressed to the FAC. Mr. Pryor chose not to tell the FAC that this letter had already been released to the NY Post. Pryor's letter to members of the Families Advisory Council was misleading. Transcripts we have obtained through a Freedom of Information Request belie his assertions. 
Despite as he claimed in the letter that the LMDC has always worked in "good faith" this is clearly not good faith. We consider this highly unprofessional act the final straw and will no longer deal with the LMDC. We demand a meeting with Governor Pataki and his Chief of Staff John Cahill.
We are asking each of you to email, phone and/or fax Governor Pataki telling him that the LMDC does not act in good faith and that the Governor and his Chief of Staff must meet with the Take Back the Memorial representatives and historic preservation groups prior to the commencement of construction. Additionally, to increase the pressure, please contact NY State Senators Schumer and Clinton as well as your state representatives asking for their support. 
Time is short; on March 13th construction will begin on this seriously flawed Memorial. America deserves more. 
Go to WWW.TAKEBACKTHEMEMORIAL.COM or www.TAKEBACKTHEMEMORIAL.ORG for direct links to Governor Pataki, NY State Senators and Representatives.

- http://www.nydailynews.com 
BY PAUL D. COLFORD
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER 
Friday, March 10th, 2006 

| Correspondent of 
LONDON - When police raided a London mosque three years ago in their pursuit of a radical Islamic preacher, they found forged passports, laminating equipment, and bundles of cash.
The haul, details of which were only recently made public, speaks volumes about a remarkable evolution in the funding of terrorism. What was once a global network financed by elusive donors and administered by Al Qaeda "fund- managers" has now fragmented into a constellation of franchises that sustain themselves primarily through crime.
This, experts say, is partly a result of the vigorous multinational effort since 9/11 to break up the Al Qaeda network and stanch the cash flows that sustained terror attacks. But it's also due to the reduced cost of mounting terror attacks, they say.
Estimates suggest that the 9/11 attacks may have cost as much as $500,000 to stage. By contrast, the Madrid bombings of 2004 are believed to have cost no more than $15,000, and last year's London attacks perhaps $2,000.Four bombs, four rucksacks, some train tickets, a little gasoline, and a few phone calls.
"Terrorist financing is very different today," says Loretta Napoleoni, author of "Modern Jihad: Tracing the Dollars Behind the Terror Networks." "Five years ago, we had large movement of funds which went through the international financial system.
"Now we are just talking about four friends who raise £1,000 to stage an attack," she adds. "The unit cost of terrorist financing has crashed to the floor. They [terrorists] don't need another 9/11. They can do a small thing and create the same hysteria."
But those who track terror financing haven't adjusted their strategies accordingly, says Gus Hosein, an antiterrorism expert at the London School of Economics: "What we are seeing is terror done on the cheap and yet all the regulations to monitor financial transactions and crack down on this are looking for larger sums."
A flood of information 
The 9/11 attacks startled the world into action to combat terror finance. More than 130 countries have signed on to a UN convention requiring legislative action and financial supervision to spot the dirty money. Scores of charities and individuals have been blacklisted both by the UN and by individual jurisdictions.
Hundreds of millions of dollars of assets have been frozen. Many countries set up dedicated terrorist finance units to coordinate action, like the US Treasury's Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Some passed laws to make financing terrorism a specific crime.
Many of the ideas emanated from a set of recommendations issued by the Paris-based think tank Financial Action Task Force [FATF], in October 2001.
Vincent Schmoll, a senior policy analyst at FATF who says the recommendations have taken on a certain "moral authority" with countries that might otherwise drag their heels, lists the main areas where progress has been made: freezing assets, notification of suspicious transactions by financial institutions, and growing efforts to tackle the informal money transfer system, known as hawala, which operates below the official financial system's radar.
But there have been problems with some initiatives. Banks desperate to avoid a black mark for letting suspect money through the net have zealously filed their "suspicious activity reports," resulting in an avalanche of paperwork for overwhelmed financial investigators. Some estimates put the number of filings in the US alone at 13 million a day.
Islamic charities, meanwhile, complain bitterly about being singled out for attention. One London-based charity that helps fund Palestinian social projects, Interpal, protests that it was blacklisted by America even though it had been cleared in Britain. "It means we cannot take any donations in US dollars, which is obviously a major obstacle to getting funds," complains one employee.
While charity forms an important pillar of the Islamic faith, intelligence chiefs have long suspected that alms sometimes end up financing terrorists.
'Following the money' - few arrests 
Despite the flurry of activity, however, actual convictions for financing terrorism have been few and far between. Last September, a Spanish court sentenced Imad Yarkas to 27 years for helping fund the 9/11 attacks; two months earlier, Yemeni cleric Mohammed Ali Hassan al-Moayad was sentenced to 75 years in the US for conspiring to provide financial support to Al Qaeda and Hamas.
The reason for the dearth of other convictions may be that the authoritieschoose to "follow the money," rather than haul in suspects, says Bill Tupman, a professor at Exeter University in Britain who has studied terrorism for decades.
While the 9/11 commission said that tracking Al Qaeda financing had proven "a very effective way to locate terrorist operatives and supporters and to disrupt terrorist plots," Professor Tupman explains that intelligence services face a difficult choice of whether to confiscate the money and bring a criminal case, or follow the cash and see where it ends up.
He adds that the lack of criminal convictions may also be due to the fact that terror funding is a complex jigsaw, and no one agency holds all the pieces. Banks may have one piece, counterterrorist units another, but others may be held by partners overseas, requiring better international cooperation. "There is plenty of information," says Tupman, "but then there was plenty of information at the time of 9/11 ... the problem is putting it all together."
A new center of experts 
If the problem is putting it all together, the solution, according to Britain's Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown, lies in unified action. Among a series of measures outlined last month was a plan to bring national experts together in a unit that would work at "cracking" terror finance in the same way that wartime mathematicians collaborated in cracking the Nazi Enigma code.
But while international efforts focus on the big money that helped finance 9/11 and establish terror cells in Europe, Al Qaeda has moved on. Experts say terrorists are no longer waiting for Osama bin Laden's moneymen to dole out the cash. Instead they are, according to Paul Wilkinson, a terrorism expert at St. Andrew's University in Scotland, "accumulating funds themselves for attacks through petty crime, ID theft, fraud of many sorts, money laundering, and smuggling of money and commodities across porous borders." [Editor's note: The original version omitted Wilkinson's position and area of expertise.]
Tupman says the metamorphosis mirrors that of groups such as Irish republicans and South American narcoterrorists.
"If you are going to survive, you have to create income streams," he says. "And if you stay in the legal world, it's confiscated, so you end up following the examples of people who run illicit businesses." The alliance between organized crime and terrorists is increasingly profitable, he says. But successful terror cells will always need to launder money to find somewhere safe to park it until it is needed, perhaps buying property for cash or investing in trusts that yield an income.
The trick for the authorities is to snare the dirty money at the point that it tries to enter the legitimate system. Those points should be the frontline in the war on terror, says a UN expert, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of continued involvement in the affair. "It's where you incorporate companies, it's with the bankers and fiduciary trusts and lawyers that help you mutate these things on a weekly basis, buying assets that are portable, that you can move easily, so you always get money wherever you go."
But for open societies that pride themselves on freewheeling financial centers, snaring the villains without hindering the operations of the innocent can be difficult. Are cities like London, whose easy-come-easy-go attitudes bring boundless international capital, going to sacrifice financial freedom to catch a few money launderers? Napoleoni thinks not.
"After all," she says, "you can open a bank account in Turkey and use a cashpoint anywhere in Europe to withdraw the funds. "How are you going to stop that?"
* [Editor's note: The original subhead mischaracterized the center's personnel. Also, it did not specify Brown's government position.]