Would You Trust Him?
The new “Phase II” Senate Intelligence Report on Iraq’s ties to al Qaeda (or lack thereof) relies heavily on the testimony of former Iraqi officials, including Saddam Hussein and one of his top intelligence officers, Faruq Hijazi.
The authors of the report made no attempt to establish the truthfulness of their claims. They simply cited the Iraqi officials’ testimony unquestioningly. This is simply not good investigative work. The former Iraqi regime officials have an obvious incentive to lie. Many of them, including Saddam, are on trial for their crimes. If they are found guilty, they will most certainly receive a death sentence.
Moreover, an intelligence operative like Faruq Hijazi is trained to lie. He has been trained to operate in the shadows, assiduously covering his trail. However, this did not stop the authors of the “Phase II” report from including his testimony without any sort of caveat.
The “Phase II” report includes roughly five and a half pages on “contacts” between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. Five and one half pages are not enough to really analyze all of the information about prewar and postwar contacts between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda. (I will have more on this in the near future.) Disturbingly, in this cursory examination of contacts, Hijazi’s unquestioned testimony figures prominently.
According to the "Phase II" report, Hijazi admitted meeting with bin Laden only once in 1995 in Sudan. He told his debriefers that “this was his sole meeting with bin Laden or a member of al-Qaeda and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact.”
This is an obvious lie. Over the Corner Jonah Goldberg points to the transcript of an ABC News segment from January 1999. ABC News reported that a very significant meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden took place within days of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. Importantly, ABC News was not alone in reporting this event. Media outlets from around the world reported on the meeting and its possibly dire consequences.
As I wrote last year, press outlets from the U.S., Europe and throughout the Arab world reported on the meeting. All of the reporting indicated that the meeting was not some benign event. Something nefarious was afoot. Some of the reporting made it clear that the meeting was part of a larger pattern of collaboration.
There are numerous press accounts from which to choose. But consider this contemporaneous account from the Iraq Foundation, which is a not-for-profit corporation “working for democracy and human rights in Iraq.” Hijazi is no trustworthy source:
…According to news sources, Al-Hijazi has a suspicious and violent past, including torture, spying, smuggling and even possible connections to terrorism. Al-Hijazi had previously been designated ambassador to Canada, but Canada refused to accredit him because of his record.
Al-Hijazi had a career with the first Ba'th security apparatus, Jihaz Hanin, set up by Saddam Hussein to spy on Ba'th party members and purge opponents of the regime. Hanin was in its day a domestic terrorist organization. In the 1980's Al-Hijazi worked under Barzan Tikriti, Saddam's half brother, when Tikriti headed the dreaded General Directorate of Security. This organization was notorious for practicing routine torture, physical liquidation, executions and assassinations of Iraqis suspected of political activity. Thousands of Iraqis were tortured and killed by the Directorate. Al-Hijazi also served as an intelligence officer in several Iraqi embassies in Europe.
During the occupation of Kuwait, Al-Hijazi was reportedly in charge of security arrangements for intelligence activities. Most recently, Al-Hijazi was Deputy Chief of Iraqi Intelligence, the Mukhabarat.
In addition, Al-Hijazi is said to be linked to the wide network of front companies and smuggling activities established by Barzan Tikriti and Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay. News sources report that managing this extensive network was one of Hijazi's chief activities at the Mukhabarat.
Most dramatically, a number of press reports link Al-Hijazi to [Osama] Bin Laden. The reports claim that the two met in 1994 and again in 1998, and there may have been talk about cooperation between Bin Laden and the Iraqi regime.
In short, Hijazi is not a bona fide diplomat, but a thug with blood on his hands, whose principal career was in a variety of criminal activities.
The Iraq Foundation’s account makes it clear that no one should trust Hijazi. He is a violent thug with ties to terrorism. The account doesn’t offer you Hijazi’s full terrorist dossier, but it does give you a sense of his extensive career as one of Saddam’s top intelligence operatives. And there is much more to the December 1998 meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden than the account lets on.
In any event, the “Phase II” report’s authors cited Hijazi’s testimony without mentioning any of this. But, I wouldn’t trust him.
Would you?
The authors of the report made no attempt to establish the truthfulness of their claims. They simply cited the Iraqi officials’ testimony unquestioningly. This is simply not good investigative work. The former Iraqi regime officials have an obvious incentive to lie. Many of them, including Saddam, are on trial for their crimes. If they are found guilty, they will most certainly receive a death sentence.
Moreover, an intelligence operative like Faruq Hijazi is trained to lie. He has been trained to operate in the shadows, assiduously covering his trail. However, this did not stop the authors of the “Phase II” report from including his testimony without any sort of caveat.
The “Phase II” report includes roughly five and a half pages on “contacts” between the Iraqi regime and al Qaeda. Five and one half pages are not enough to really analyze all of the information about prewar and postwar contacts between Iraqi officials and al Qaeda. (I will have more on this in the near future.) Disturbingly, in this cursory examination of contacts, Hijazi’s unquestioned testimony figures prominently.
According to the "Phase II" report, Hijazi admitted meeting with bin Laden only once in 1995 in Sudan. He told his debriefers that “this was his sole meeting with bin Laden or a member of al-Qaeda and he is not aware of any other individual following up on the initial contact.”
This is an obvious lie. Over the Corner Jonah Goldberg points to the transcript of an ABC News segment from January 1999. ABC News reported that a very significant meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden took place within days of Operation Desert Fox in December 1998. Importantly, ABC News was not alone in reporting this event. Media outlets from around the world reported on the meeting and its possibly dire consequences.
As I wrote last year, press outlets from the U.S., Europe and throughout the Arab world reported on the meeting. All of the reporting indicated that the meeting was not some benign event. Something nefarious was afoot. Some of the reporting made it clear that the meeting was part of a larger pattern of collaboration.
There are numerous press accounts from which to choose. But consider this contemporaneous account from the Iraq Foundation, which is a not-for-profit corporation “working for democracy and human rights in Iraq.” Hijazi is no trustworthy source:
…According to news sources, Al-Hijazi has a suspicious and violent past, including torture, spying, smuggling and even possible connections to terrorism. Al-Hijazi had previously been designated ambassador to Canada, but Canada refused to accredit him because of his record.
Al-Hijazi had a career with the first Ba'th security apparatus, Jihaz Hanin, set up by Saddam Hussein to spy on Ba'th party members and purge opponents of the regime. Hanin was in its day a domestic terrorist organization. In the 1980's Al-Hijazi worked under Barzan Tikriti, Saddam's half brother, when Tikriti headed the dreaded General Directorate of Security. This organization was notorious for practicing routine torture, physical liquidation, executions and assassinations of Iraqis suspected of political activity. Thousands of Iraqis were tortured and killed by the Directorate. Al-Hijazi also served as an intelligence officer in several Iraqi embassies in Europe.
During the occupation of Kuwait, Al-Hijazi was reportedly in charge of security arrangements for intelligence activities. Most recently, Al-Hijazi was Deputy Chief of Iraqi Intelligence, the Mukhabarat.
In addition, Al-Hijazi is said to be linked to the wide network of front companies and smuggling activities established by Barzan Tikriti and Saddam's sons, Uday and Qusay. News sources report that managing this extensive network was one of Hijazi's chief activities at the Mukhabarat.
Most dramatically, a number of press reports link Al-Hijazi to [Osama] Bin Laden. The reports claim that the two met in 1994 and again in 1998, and there may have been talk about cooperation between Bin Laden and the Iraqi regime.
In short, Hijazi is not a bona fide diplomat, but a thug with blood on his hands, whose principal career was in a variety of criminal activities.
The Iraq Foundation’s account makes it clear that no one should trust Hijazi. He is a violent thug with ties to terrorism. The account doesn’t offer you Hijazi’s full terrorist dossier, but it does give you a sense of his extensive career as one of Saddam’s top intelligence operatives. And there is much more to the December 1998 meeting between Hijazi and bin Laden than the account lets on.
In any event, the “Phase II” report’s authors cited Hijazi’s testimony without mentioning any of this. But, I wouldn’t trust him.
Would you?
posted by Thomas Joscelyn at 7:44 AM
<< Home