British security sources raise doubts over US claims about 'dirty bomber'
By Kim Sengupta and Andrew Buncombe, Independent

British and European security officials are highly sceptical of American claims that the alleged "dirty bomb" plotter, Abdullah al-Muhajir, was preparing to unleash a radioactive attack.

British sources point out that despite extensive inquiries, no evidence has been produced to show that he had access to the radioactive material needed to build the bomb, or indeed that he had even worked out a time or place to launch the attack.

The most that could be said about Mr Muhajir, a former member of a Chicago street gang now allegedly working for al-Qa'ida, is that he had the "intention" of launching such an attack, security sources said.

President Bush announced yesterday that a "full-scale manhunt" was under way across the United States for accomplices of Mr Muhajir. "We will run down every lead, every hint. We're in for a long struggle in this war on terror. And there are people that still want to harm America."

Before his arrest at Chicago's O'Hare airport on 8 May, Mr Muhajir – who changed his name from Jose Padilla – stopped in Zurich on the way from Pakistan, where he collected $10,500 (£7,000).

Despite claims by the Attorney General, John Ashcroft, that the FBI had disrupted a plan to launch a radioactive attack against Washington, other officials conceded yesterday that there was no evidence that any such plot had progressed beyond the most basic stages.

British security sources, who believe Mr Muhajir might have been acting as a courier, said the Americans investigated Mr Muhajir's activities and tried to find a terrorist network he may have been involved with inside the US. The highly publicised announcement of the arrest only came after the failure to find anything more incriminating.

In Washington there was a growing suspicion that the arrest was seized on by the Bush administration in dramatic fashion for political ends. British and European security agencies do believe, however, that there is still a real threat of a possible attack.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/
americas/story.jsp?story=304437

Gee, d'ya think - just maybe - that the Bushies are playing the media for fools?

By Neil A. Lewis, New York Times

WASHINGTON — The announcement by Attorney General John Ashcroft of the arrest of a man accused of planning to explode a radioactive device was a notable change from the administration's position that it would not disclose information about the plots it disrupted.

Some Democrats and civil liberties advocates have questioned whether the disclosure was timed to help counter criticism that the authorities, especially those at the Federal Bureau of Investigation, had mishandled signals that might have uncovered the Sept. 11 plot. They questioned whether the disclosure about the case of Jose Padilla, also known as Abdullah al-Muhajir, was part of a pattern in which the administration orchestrated its announcements to help it politically.

"Every time it looks as though the administration is going to face criticism, they emerge with a request for expanded powers or a new announcement," said Laura W. Murphy, the director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union. " What they seem to be doing is timing things so they drown out really aggressive inquiry into their performance."

Representative Henry Waxman, Democrat of California, said it was not possible to know whether the announcement's timing was being manipulated. "But," Mr. Waxman said, "it's hard to ignore that there seems to be a pattern that makes it appear they are being quite political in their calculations of the timing of these announcements."

Mr. Waxman also cited President Bush's announcement of a new Department of Homeland Security on the same day the Senate Judiciary Committee was hearing testimony from Coleen Rowley, the F.B.I. agent who accused the bureau of bungling warnings before Sept. 11.

One administration official said the timing of the Monday announcement was forced by circumstances beyond their control. The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said the arrest of Mr. Padilla was announced when he was transferred to military authorities from civilian custody.

"If the information were to get out and not be in the full context," the official said, "it would be confusing and a lot more alarming to the public."

The official said that when the military took custody of Mr. Padilla, Defense Department officials felt obliged to tell members of Congress on the Armed Forces committees, and that meant that the information might soon become public knowledge.

Other law enforcement officials said the timing of the announcement of the Padilla arrest was driven by prosecutors' having to appear at a hearing in a New York federal court to show that Mr. Padilla was indicted in order to keep him in custody. The officials said they did not have enough evidence to indict him. Other officials assert they chose not to indict Mr. Padilla because they would have had to disclose investigative details they wanted to keep secret.

The officials acknowledged, however, that once they decided to disclose the arrest and the accusation that Mr. Padilla was seeking to manufacture a radioactive, or dirty, bomb, they rushed to ensure that the first announcement could be made by Mr. Ashcroft, even though he was in Moscow on a previously scheduled trip.

Officials worked quickly to arrange a video hookup for Mr. Ashcroft, who laced his announcement with praise for the F.B.I. and its ability to deter terrorist attacks.

Senator Tom Daschle of South Dakota, the majority leader, told reporters today that he had questions about the timing of the Padilla announcement, but said he was "confident that the administration would not politicize this issue."

Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center, said that although he had no knowledge of whether the administration orchestrated the timing of the Padilla announcement, "it's certainly easy to be cynical about it."

Reprinted from The New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/
06/12/politics/12TIME.html