Posts Tagged ‘CIA’


Enemy No. 1: Anwar The American

February 9, 2010

Enemy No. 1: Anwar The American

9 Feb. 2010 | IBD

Awlaki in 2008: Why isn't he in the cross hairs of our drones? APAwlaki in 2008: Why isn’t he in the cross hairs of our drones? AP View Enlarged Image

War On Terror: Upstaging Osama Bin Laden as the most dangerous man in the world may be an American recruiter for al-Qaida: Anwar Awlaki. So why’s he talking to Al-Jazeera instead of interrogators?

The radical U.S.-born cleric Anwar Awlaki told the Arab TV network that he supported the failed Christmas Day airliner attack because “the American people have participated in all the crimes of their government.” The turncoat added: “Some 300 Americans are nothing compared to the thousands of Muslims they have killed.”

Awlaki also advised the Fort Hood terrorist, whom he called “a hero.” The two exchanged some 20 e-mails. But he is best known for privately meeting with some of the 9/11 hijackers.

The Christmas crotch-bomber told federal authorities that Awlaki directed him to carry out his airliner attack, which means he has gone operational.

Both U.S. and Yemeni intelligence believe Awlaki met with suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab in Yemen late last year, and may have even helped outfit the bomber. There are also reports that Awlaki, born 38 years ago in New Mexico, has given his blessing to roomsful of blue-eyed, blonde-haired Americans preparing for suicide missions against their own country.

If true, this is chilling stuff. Yet the administration seems hesitant to go after Awlaki, who is holed up in a tribal region of Yemen. Some say that because he’s a U.S. citizen, the CIA cannot target him with a drone-fired missile.

Not so. After 9/11, President Bush gave the CIA, and later the military, authority to kill U.S. citizens abroad if strong evidence existed that an American was involved in organizing or carrying out terrorist actions against the U.S.

In fact, U.S. citizen Kamal Derwish was killed by a CIA missile strike in November 2002. U.S. spooks knew he was in a car with six other al-Qaida operatives driving through the Yemen desert. And they sent a Hellfire missile after them.

The CIA should put Awlaki in the cross hairs of a drone as a wartime imperative. His family is in touch with him and knows his whereabouts. Will Yemeni authorities help us triangulate on his location?

Political pressure is key. His father, a former Yemeni minister and current adviser to the Yemeni president, is well-connected, and recently made an impassioned plea to the U.S. to spare his son’s life. It’s a little too late for that.

White House national security adviser John Brennan recently testified that “we’re very concerned about Mr. Awlaki.”

Really? Then why hasn’t he even been added to the FBI’s Most Wanted Terrorists list, alongside another U.S. citizen — Adam Gadahn, the “American al-Qaida”?

Gadahn’s crime is issuing al-Qaida propaganda from a safe house somewhere inside Pakistan. There is no evidence he is directly involved in terrorist operations.

Yet he was indicted for treason and material support to al-Qaida, and now has a $1 million bounty on his head.

At the very least, the feds could add Awlaki to the Most Wanted list. He should be made Public Enemy No. 1.

Awlaki is the Pied Piper of jihadists, turning up in case after case. Court records cite Awlaki and his jihadi Web site as the source of inspiration for much of the homegrown terror plaguing the country. Awlaki also inspired the Fort Dix Six, who plotted to kill U.S. troops by posing as pizza delivery drivers; and the 20 Minneapolis students who joined al-Qaida’s jihad in Somalia, including the first known American suicide bomber.

Of all the terrorists arrested since 9/11, none poses a greater threat than this bloodthirsty American preacher, who gets hundreds, if not thousands, of young Muslim men jacked up for jihad, making him a lethal force multiplier for the enemy.


Zazi’s Nabber – Obama????

October 9, 2009

Zazi’s Nabber

IBD: 7 Oct. 2009

National Security: Intelligence officials say alleged terrorist plotter Najibullah Zazi was caught not thanks to domestic surveillance but by CIA tracking of al-Qaida. The White House says the president did it. [???]

Imagine you, or perhaps your father, were one of the five Marines who raised the American flag on Mount Suribachi during the Battle of Iwo Jima in 1945. Then imagine seeing Joe Rosenthal’s Pulitzer Prize-winning photo of that iconic image.

But then you read the caption below the photo. It says that according to the White House, what those Marines were doing was the result of “President Roosevelt’s deep involvement in the war effort.” The claim is that the Marines only had sketchy information about Iwo Jima, but the president sensed something and held “an intensive three-week White House focus” on the impending attack.

Wouldn’t it sound fishy? Wouldn’t you feel as if the real heroes had been dishonored for the sake of an oversized presidential ego?

Of course, FDR made no such claim. But the Obama White House is taking credit for the arrest of Zazi, the 24-year-old Afghan immigrant who allegedly was plotting a terrorist attack in New York City. Authorities believe he was trained by al-Qaida in Pakistan and sought common beauty products to make bombs.

Zazi was reportedly tracked down through the CIA’s discovery of his communications with a high-level al-Qaida contact. But to hear the White House describe it, you’d think a satellite was transmitting real-time video to the Situation Room showing Zazi as he drove across the country.

“Senior officials added the case to Obama’s daily intelligence briefing in the Oval Office,” the Washington Post was told by presidential aides, after which “the case quickly piqued Obama’s curiosity and led to what aides called an intensive three-week White House focus on the case.”

What a juggling act: While pushing Congress for radical health reform, reneging on our commitment to the Poles and the Czechs on missile defense, pondering whether to take the advice of the general he appointed to run the war in Afghanistan, and horning into Israel’s domestic policies regarding settlements, the commander in chief managed to laser in on the Zazi case at a point when the professionals “had only fragmented information about Zazi.”

Far from demonstrating any magical presidential sixth sense, the foiling of this plot proves Islamist sleeper cells are among us, ready to be awakened at any moment and commit, as Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano calls them, “man-caused disasters.”

The rest of us call them “acts of terrorism.”


CIA Cheif to Reach out to Arabs, Chaldeans

September 11, 2009

Americans – especially from Michigan have a great deal of experience with the Muslim mind-set.  That’s why we have little trust for Islamists – they are committed and commanded to believe “their holy books” – Koran, Hadith, Sharia books – they really believe they must kill all who won’t submit and surrender – accept second-class dhmmi status and pay them taxes.  That, or be killed – THAT’S ISLAM. D.

CIA chief to reach out to Arabs, Chaldeans


Saying that diversity is vital to national security, the head of the CIA is set to meet with Arab-American and Chaldean advocates next week in Dearborn as part of an ongoing effort to engage metro Detroiters who have roots in the Middle East.

CIA Director Leon Panetta is to speak at a dinner Wednesday with about 150 community leaders in the Bint Jebail Cultural Center, a Lebanese-American hall in Dearborn.

“We look forward to a good meeting with Mr. Panetta,” said Imad Hamad, regional director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, who was invited to attend. The CIA sees “the value of the community.”

In recent years, the CIA has tried to increasingly recruit Arab Americans as the United States has become involved in conflicts across the Arab and Muslim worlds.

Metro Detroit is “filled with patriots with the skills our country needs,” CIA spokesman George Little said.

The CIA has been a big sponsor of Arab-American events in metro Detroit in recent years, including the Arab International Festival in June.

Diversity helps us do a better job of keeping this country safe,” Panetta said this month in Washington, D.C., at the annual conference of the Historically Black Colleges and Universities, according to a CIA transcript. “Good intelligence requires officers from diverse backgrounds.”

Hamad said that some Arab Americans are skeptical of the CIA because some fear being spied on. But he added that others are eager to work with the agency.

Contact NIRAJ WARIKOO: 313-223-4792 or


Picturing The Enemy

August 25, 2009

Picturing The Enemy

Investors Business Daily 22 Aug. 09

Security: The ACLU sneakily photographing CIA officers near their homes, then showing the shots to the imprisoned planners of the 9/11 attacks. A fruitcake fantasy? The government is looking into exactly this.

When the Washington Post three and a half years ago uncovered the CIA’s “black prisons” program, in which enhanced interrogation was used against terrorist detainees to foil future atrocities, we forcefully argued that such secret wartime operations ought never be outed.

The Post may have won a Pulitzer for its revelation, but we feel more strongly than ever today. And a new story in that same newspaper gives new facts about the harm it did, and continues to do.

A Justice Department investigation is now apparently investigating whether photos of covert CIA officials surreptitiously taken by the American Civil Liberties Union’s “John Adams Project” were unlawfully shown to terrorist detainees charged with organizing the attacks of 9/11.

It’s all supposedly part of military lawyers’ aggressive defense of their terrorist defendants, on whom enhanced interrogation may have been used. But the Justice probe seems to have given quite a scare to ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero. Refusing to comment on the specifics of his organization’s photo activities on behalf of “our clients,” Romero complained that the government was not investigating “the CIA officials who undertook the torture.”

Has there ever been a more outrageous trading of places? Those behind the attacks that murdered thousands are now the victims? And the courageous U.S. government officials who grilled them for the purpose of preventing further terrorist attacks are now the villains?

Instead of receiving the protection they deserve, they and their family members have apparently been spied on by the ACLU and have had their likenesses displayed to al-Qaida members!

What if these detainees get released — which the ACLU obviously wouldn’t mind seeing happen? Will descriptions of those CIA officers be relayed up the al-Qaida food chain? Will there be “future ops” files on these interrogators and their families somewhere in the mountainous caves of Afghanistan and Pakistan?

The Post story notes that leftist groups here and abroad, European investigators and others “have compiled lists of people thought to have been involved in the CIA’s program, including CIA station chiefs, agency interrogators and medical personnel who accompanied detainees on planes as they were moved from one secret location to another.”

It says that “working from these lists, some of which include up to 45 names, researchers photographed agency workers and obtained other photos from public records.” The ACLU’s Romero shrugs his shoulders and calls all that “normal” lawyerly research.

It may be normal for a group that throughout its history has provided aid and comfort to America’s adversaries, but compiling a long enemies list and attaching pictures to go with the names should be the least-normal thing imaginable in a free society.

To al-Qaida, such a list of names-paired-with-faces might as well be Stalin’s list of those targeted for Communist Party purges in the ’30s, ’40s and ’50s — in other words, a collective death warrant.

This shows just how foolish it is to treat the POWs of the global war on terror as if they were American citizens protected by our laws and Constitution. Morale is already poor within the agency because the heroes within their ranks have been depicted as little better than the Marquis de Sade.

Who in the CIA will be willing to stick their necks out in the future, with prosecutions hanging over their heads, the blowing of their covers by the ACLU, and the physical endangerment of themselves and their families as their thanks? On top of it all, who really believes the Obama Justice Department will at the end of the day do anything to punish those guilty of aiding the enemy?

It’s a smutty business from top to bottom, but the most despicable of this sorry cast of characters have to be those who physically snapped the shots. How depraved must you be to violate and endanger the families of those who saved so many American lives?


Political Cartoon

July 17, 2009

edited cartoon

IBD July 17 09


Attacking Success

July 17, 2009

IBD  13 July 09

CIA: The latest media kerfuffle over the supposedly secret “plan” to kidnap or kill al-Qaida leaders shows just how pathetic our Congress has become. Gee, aren’t we supposed to kidnap or kill the enemy?

The Democrats, still stinging from the stunning revelation that Rep. Nancy Pelosi lied about being briefed by the CIA about waterboarding, have whipped up a new spy scandal to even the score against the CIA.

To make it even more damaging, they’ve thrown in former Vice President Dick Cheney for good measure, charging that he pushed a covert program to kill or capture al-Qaida’s leaders through the CIA. The plan began after 9/11, when President Bush authorized a secret program to capture or kill al-Qaida terrorists.

This is a rare two-fer for the Democrats: They protect one of their own (Pelosi) while going after the now departed bogeyman (Cheney), whom they’ve tried to build up as an archvillain who tricked Americans into deposing Iraq’s lovable Saddam Hussein.

Congressional Democrats want a full-on investigation of the CIA — and they’re likely to get it. “To have a massive program that was concealed from the leaders in Congress is not only inappropriate, it could be illegal,” said Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin.

Sounds good. Righteous, even. In fact, the plan never got off the ground. Nor was it “massive,” as Durbin says. Just $1 million was spent — a pittance. So why the big deal?

This all came about after CIA Director Leon Panetta told the House and Senate Intelligence Committees that Cheney had ordered a covert program and that the CIA had lied to Congress about it for eight years.

Anyone who thinks about this for even a moment will be struck by its absurdity. After 9/11, the U.S. declared a war on terror. Who else would we target but al-Qaida’s leaders?

We’ve targeted al-Qaida’s bigwigs through the use of drones for several years. It’s been a huge success. Al-Qaida’s alpha dogs won’t show their faces in public for fear of being sent to meet their maker by a U.S.-made rocket with their name on it.

This is a bipartisan policy, by the way. Yes, it began under Bush. But as Marc Thiessen notes on the National Review Online blog, “The Obama administration itself has reportedly escalated targeted killings of al-Qaida terrorists in Pakistan using Predator and Reaper drones.”

So whether you send in a special-ops team with sniper scopes to kill someone, or do it from the sky with drones, the effect is the same: It’s an assassination. Let’s not play word games. Indeed, the only surprise in this would be if the U.S. weren’t targeting al-Qaida’s best for termination with extreme prejudice.

Even so, apart from drones, the CIA’s perfectly legitimate program never really killed anyone. It never left the planning stages. And it was canceled on June 23 by Panetta. A nonissue, in short.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Eric Holder says he might appoint a special prosecutor to go after Cheney and former CIA operatives who conducted rough interrogations of al-Qaida leaders.

If only Democrats pursued al-Qaida with the same fervor as they do their political enemies, we’d all be a lot safer.


A Double Agent At The CIA?

July 10, 2009

A Double Agent At The CIA?


National Security: If CIA Director Leon Panetta really has claimed to his old friends in Congress that the agency was lying to them, the impact will be unprecedented. Do we have a mole running Langley?

Related Topics: General Politics

Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee on June 26 fired off a nasty letter to CIA head and former high-ranking Democratic Rep. Leon Panetta. The thrust was that their former House Democratic colleague is a liar.

Signed by Reps. Anna Eshoo, Alcee Hastings, Rush Holt, Jan Schakowsky, Adam Smith, Mike Thompson and John Tierney, the curt message said:

“Recently you have testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress, and misled Members for a number of years from 2001 to this week. This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods.”

The Democrats’ letter went on to ask Panetta to “correct” publicly a May 15 statement to CIA employees that it was against agency policy and practice, and “against our laws and values,” to mislead Congress.

Could it be any clearer that these members of a congressional panel in charge of intelligence matters — more than half of the House Intelligence Committee’s Democrats, including the three top-ranking majority members under the chairman — consider the intelligence community to be the enemy?

The letter reads not like the national security concerns of the elected representatives of the people, but rather like an ACLU cease-and-desist threat.

It would be a mistake, however, to view Panetta as an aggrieved party. CIA spokesman George Little was quick to try to douse the flames stirred up by the Democrats’ letter, telling the Washington Independent shortly after the communication was made public late Wednesday that their claim that Panetta said the CIA misled Congress is “completely wrong” and that Panetta “stands by his May 15 statement.”

But clearly Panetta testified to something big in closed session that Democrats are now using to clobber our spies.

Another letter, from House Intelligence Committee chief Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas, to the panel’s ranking Republican, Peter Hoekstra, charged that Panetta’s secret testimony suggested the committee “has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to.”

Reyes and other Democrats on the committee won’t tell the public what exactly the so-called “significant actions” concealed from Congress were, or what the “affirmative lie” was.

Ironically, they’re hiding behind a smoke screen of governmental secrecy, with one House aide telling Politico that “the details behind the letter are apparently at very high levels of classification.”

As Republicans have already surmised, it smells more like a very low level of politicization. The goal of this seems to be to immunize House Speaker Nancy Pelosi from accusations that she lied about what the CIA told her regarding enhanced interrogations during the Bush administration’s first term.

As Hoekstra told CBS on Thursday, “it looks like they’re working on the political equation” rather than “trying to foster a bipartisan consensus on national security.”

Hoekstra went on to call Reyes’ letter “one of the most bizarre episodes in politics that I’ve seen in my time here in Washington.” That’s saying a lot. But it’s even worse than that.

According to Reyes, Panetta’s closed testimony “may well lead to a full committee investigation” of the CIA. Will there be a new Church Committee-style witch hunt, which crippled our spies’ abilities and destroyed their morale in the 1970s?

All of this comes as debate nears on the Intelligence Authorization Bill. As part of the debate, Democrats intend to require that details of covert actions be revealed to the entire membership of the Senate and House intelligence committees, not just the eight leaders of both parties from the leadership and intelligence panels.

With the unfolding terrorist threats the U.S. faces in coming years, the last thing we need are preemptive congressional assaults from Congress against our spies — especially if their ammunition comes from the CIA director himself.


Report: WMD CIA

June 10, 2009

Notwithstanding all the current brouhaha over what the CIA did or did not tell Congress about enhanced interrogation techniques, the Agency provides an abundant amount of meaningful information to congressional intelligence committees and leadership. Attached is a recently released report that typifies what they receive regularly via the Agency.

Of particular interest and concern in this document is the assessment in section I of Iran’s acquisitions of nuclear, ballistic missile, chemical and biological technology. Also very significant is the Iranian activity in the proliferation of advanced conventional weapons, summarized in section IV.

A new report from the staff of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to its members states that “there is no sign that Iran’s leaders have ordered up a bomb. But unclassified interviews…make clear that Iran has moved closer to completing the three components for a nuclear weapon – fissile material, warhead design and delivery system.”

In the transmittal letter that accompanied this report to his Committee, chairman John Kerry writes that “Resolving [suspicions about] the [nuclear] issue will be one of the most difficult confronting negotiators for the two countries and the international community.” In light of the attached document, as well as all the dialogue from Iran on this matter to date, that’s quite an understatement!





Pelosi: Liar?

May 15, 2009


Intelligence Trail

What Pelosi said she knew

  • August 2002: Justice Department authorizes waterboarding and other ‘enhanced interrogation’ techniques (EITs). The CIA uses the technique.
  • September 2002: Nancy Pelosi, ranking member on the House Intelligence Committee, is briefed on the techniques.
  • February 2003: A Pelosi aide attends a briefing with the new ranking member on the committee, Jane Harman. Pelosi later says that she learns after this meeting that the techniques have already been used, and that she ‘concurred’ with Harman’s letter to the CIA protesting the decision to use them.
  • December 2007: A news report quotes two officials who say Pelosi was briefed on waterboarding and raised no objections. Pelosi issues a statement confirming she was briefed on one occasion in the fall of 2002 ‘on interrogation techniques the administration was considering using in the future.’
  • April 23, 2009: After the Obama administration releases four memos approving the use of waterboarding, Pelosi says that in September 2002, ‘We were not …told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation techniques were used.’
  • May 5, 2009: Intelligence officials send lawmakers a list of 40 congressional briefings on EITs, saying lawmakers ‘will have to determine whether this information is an accurate summary of what actually happened.’ The list says Pelosi was told that some EITs had been employed, but doesn’t specify waterboarding.
  • May 8, 2009: Pelosi repeats that she was briefed on techniques that would be used in the future.
  • May 14, 2009: Pelosi says she wasn’t told in September 2002 that waterboarding was being used, and says ‘the CIA was misleading Congress.’

Cartoon: CIA & FBI

May 1, 2009

CIA & FBI – Obama: “You have the right to remain silent”


Cartoon: The Hokey Pelosi

April 27, 2009

Nancy Pelosi is “pushing back” against charges that she was aware of — and acquiesced in — the CIA’s harsh interrogations of terrorist detainees nearly from the moment the practice began, reports the Politico Web site. Maybe she’s suffering from amnesia.

Maybe, for instance, the speaker doesn’t remember that in September 2002, as ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, she was one of four members of Congress who were briefed by the CIA about the interrogation methods the agency was using on leading detainees. “For more than an hour,” the Washington Post reported in 2007, “the bipartisan group . . . was given a virtual tour of the CIA’s overseas detention sites and the harsh techniques interrogators had devised to try to make their prisoners talk.

“Among the techniques described,” the story continued, “was waterboarding, a practice that years later would be condemned as torture by Democrats and some Republicans on Capitol Hill. But on that day, no objections were raised. Instead, at least two lawmakers in the room asked the CIA to push harder.”

Or maybe the speaker never heard what some of her Democratic colleagues were saying about legal niceties getting in the way of an effective counterterrorism strategy.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

“Unfortunately, we are not living in times in which lawyers can say no to an operation just to play it safe,” said Democrat Bob Graham, chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence during the 2002 confirmation hearing of Scott Muller to be the CIA’s general counsel. “We need excellent, aggressive lawyers who give sound, accurate legal advice, not lawyers who say no to an otherwise legal opinion just because it is easier to put on the brakes.”

Or maybe the speaker forgot that after 9/11, the operative question among Americans, including various media paladins, wasn’t whether the Bush administration had gone overboard. On the contrary:

“I asked the president whether he and the country had done enough for the war on terror,” writes Washington Post reporter Bob Woodward in his book “Bush at War.” “The possibility of another major attack still loomed. . . . Was it not possible that he had undermobilized given the threat and the devastation of September 11?” (My emphases.)

Or maybe the speaker missed what former CIA Director (and Bill Clinton appointee) George Tenet writes in his memoir, “At the Center of the Storm,” about the CIA interrogation of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed:

“I believe none of these successes [in foiling terrorist plots] would have happened if we had had to treat KSM like a white-collar criminal — read him his Miranda rights and get him a lawyer who surely would have insisted his client simply shut up. In his initial interrogation by CIA officers, KSM was defiant. ‘I’ll talk to you guys,’ he said, ‘after I get to New York and see my lawyer.’ Apparently he thought he would be immediately shipped to the United States and indicted in the Southern District of New York. Had that happened, I am confident that we would have obtained none of the information he had in his head about imminent threats to the American people.”

Mr. Tenet continues: “From our interrogation of KSM and other senior al Qaeda members . . . we learned many things — not just tactical information leading to the next capture. For example, more than 20 plots had been put in motion by al Qaeda against U.S. infrastructure targets, including communications nodes, nuclear power plants, dams, bridges and tunnels.”

Maybe, too, the speaker no longer recalls what she knew, and when, about the Bush administration’s other much-reviled counterterrorist program, the warrantless wiretaps.

“Within weeks of the program’s inception,” writes Mr. Tenet, “senior congressional leaders were called to the White House and briefed on it. . . . At one point in 2004 there was even a discussion with the congressional leadership in the White House Situation Room with regard to whether new legislation should be introduced to amend the FISA statute, to put the program on a broader legal foundation. The view that day on the part of members of Congress was that this could not be done without jeopardizing the program.”

Maybe, finally, the speaker has forgotten the role that previous grand congressional inquisitions played in gutting U.S. intelligence.

“After the Watergate era,” the bipartisan 9/11 Commission reported, “Congress established oversight committees to ensure that the CIA did not undertake covert action contrary to basic American law. . . . During the 1990s, tension sometimes arose, as it did in the effort against al Qaeda, between policy makers who wanted the CIA to undertake more aggressive covert action and wary CIA leaders who counseled prudence and making sure that the legal basis and presidential authorization for their actions were undeniably clear.”

The speaker and her partisans are the current beneficiaries of this politics of amnesia. It won’t be so forever. And when the time comes to pay the price for their forgetfulness, it will not be small.



February 6, 2009

Do you see why many of us are critical of the CIA.  Americans have a trust problem with this security agency.

After reading about this case – go to Robert Spencer’s book “Stealth Jihad” – and read how they handled an amazing asset to American liberty – because of Islamic radicals in leadership – positions of the CIA.



28 January 2009 | Ann Arbor News

The Justice Department is investigating allegations that the CIA station chief in Algeria raped at least two Muslim women after lacing their drinks with a knockout drug, ABC News reported last night.

The 41-year-old officer, a convert to Islam, was ordered home by Ambassador David Pearce in October, a month after the women filed charges, US authorities told ABC.

The department broadened its probe to include at least one other country, Egypt, after the discovery of more than a dozen videotapes showing the officer engaged in sex acts with women, ABC said.

The officer had been posted to Egypt earlier in his career.

One of the victims said she met the station chief at a bar in the US Embassy in Algiers and was taken to his residence, where she was drugged and raped, ABC said.      Andy Geller