An Update and An Apology

A few months ago I translated an article from Die Zeit that purported to substantiate the story that some Israeli "art students" who were in the US prior to 9/11 were actually Israeli agents. Furthermore, Die Zeit reported these alleged agents were trailing some of the hijackers, including ringleader Muhammad Atta, and unsuccessfully tried to warn US officials with their suspicions about the soon-to-be hijackers. The article was largely based on a DEA report about the "art students". I translated and posted Die Zeit 's article because it seemed plausible, and a refreshing departure from the nutcase conspiracy theory that the so-called art students were actually behind the 9/11 attacks.

Fortunately, Canadian blogger Bruce Rolston had already read the DEA report and argued persuasively why it simply didn't support any of the significant claims in the Die Zeit article. (In fact it appears that the so-called "art students" were little more than a petty fraud ring, not an espionage ring).

Meanwhile I e-mailed Oliver Schröm, the freelance reporter who wrote the piece for Die Zeit, to tell him about the critique of his article and to give him a chance to respond. I also put a disclaimer on my translation indicating my opinion that the article was lacked foundation, and mentioning that I was awaiting Schröm's response. Schröm did write back about two weeks later, but his response to the questions was unconvincing. I meant to follow up, but the matter fell through the cracks. In the meantime, I forgot that my translation of the article still said that Schröm hadn't replied to me. That was my mistake.

Schröm wrote back to me today, justifiably unhappy that my site still claimed incorrectly that he hadn't replied to me. For that error I apologize. I should have acknowledged his reponse in a timely manner. And my apology extends not only to Mr. Schröm, but also to my readers. I should have been more timely and aggressive in airing the flaws in his article. I've corrected the page with the translated article and I post his reply below, translated from his original German

Many thanks for your note. I'm sorry that I couldn't answer you sooner but I was travelling the whole time and wanted to glance at my notes before getting back to you.

Please understand that I can't disclose anything more about my sources. A journalist has a duty to protect his sources.

There are a few a published items that you and/or your readers might be interested in.

1) Regarding the arrest and deportation of Israelis: It goes without question that a number of young Israelis were arrested in the US and expelled. The Washington Post reported that on November 23, 2001. This was confirmed by both American and Israeli authorities. The official reason: Visa violations. This is the standard explanation whenever spies from friendly countries are caught. I could point out a countless number of examples where countries handle the matter of "spying amoung friends" most discreetly. Only rarely is this made public, one of the major exceptions is the Pollard case. On the other hand the CIA is not afraid to make general statements in its annual report that friendly nations like Israel spy in the US).

2) Regarding the terror warning before 9/11: Similarly it is a fact that Israeli sources warned American officials six weeks before the 9/11 attacks. This, incidentally, was never disputed by the Americans. But it was always claimed that friendly intelligence services raised warnings of a "general nature".

On German TV, in the meantime, members of Israeli intelligence circles said something completely different. The Mossad had apparently given the American authorities detailed information about terrorists residing in the US. I have no knowledge whether these interviews were broadcast in the US. But the Los Angeles Times reported on this in detail on September 20, 2001.

3) Regarding the DEA report: I was surprised by your doubts (and by those of your readers) about the DEA report. The DEA long ago confirmed the report's authenticity. Among other things, several of the DEA agents who helped compile the report were mentioned by name. These DEA agents have repeatedly affirmed the veracity of its contents. In your writings you mentioned that you yourself also had access to the report. So you should be able to see for yourself.

I hope that this was helpful to you. In any event I thank you for your interest and let us both hope that the [Joint Intelligence] Committee in Washington will succeed in getting at least a few answers.

A few comments on Schröm's remarks:

1) Just because alleged spies from friendly nations are sometimes expelled for "visa violations" does not in any way imply that people who are deported for "visa violations" are necessarily spies, or even accused of being spies. The WaPo article of 11/23/2001 indicates that the Israelis were deported for working while on a tourist visa. Post 9/11 a large number of foreign nationals were expelled for visa violations unrelated to espionage or terrorism, such as this woman from New Zealand. I did not find any mention of "friendly nation" spying, let alone by Israel, in any of the CIA annual reports that I looked through. That's not to say these reports don't exist, I was simply unable to find them.

2) It's certainly possible that Israeli intelligence did share some information with US intelligence regarding possible terror attacks before 9/11. But it's not clear what was the extent of the information, and that's a separate issue from the "art students". I was unable to find any online references to the Israeli intelligence agents appearing on German TV. The LA Times report of 9/20/01 says only this

FBI and CIA officials were advised in August that as many as 200 terrorists were slipping into this country and planning "a major assault on the United States," a high-ranking law enforcement official said Wednesday.

The advisory was passed on by the Mossad, Israel's intelligence agency. It cautioned that it had picked up indications of a "large-scale target" in the United States and that Americans would be "very vulnerable," the official said.

It is not known whether U.S. authorities thought the warning to be credible, or whether it contained enough details to allow counter-terrorism teams to come up with a response. But the official said the advisory linked the information "back to Afghanistan and [exiled Saudi militant] Osama bin Laden."

"There was a connection there," he said

The Times also amended the story with this correction:

An article Thursday [9/20] reported that in August, Israeli intelligence warned U.S. officials that terrorists were preparing a large-scale attack in this country. The article cited as its source a high-ranking law enforcement official. The Times has since learned that the official's account was based on a British newspaper report, not on independent information.

The complete Times follow-up story of 9/21 which dismisses the 9/20 story is here.

3) Schröm insists that the DEA report was both authentic and true. But that was never the issue. Even if all of the facts in the DEA report are true, it still doesn't support the theory that the "art students" were intelligence agents, let alone on the trail of Muhammad Atta. I read the report myself. It comes across as a comical, almost pathetic, attempt of a second-rate and bureaucratically paranoid agency, trying desperately to imagine an anti-DEA conspiracy where there is nothing but a loosely organized network of small-time travelling con artists. Like this item:

A young brown haired woman claiming to be from San Francisco College selling artwork contacted the wife of a Special Agent at home in mid January 2001. The young woman was observed contacting two of the Special Agent's neighbors.

Right. A door-to-door peddler happens to visit a DEA agent's neighborhood. I'm sure that the Jehovah's Witnesses and Amway have also visited neighborhoods where DEA agents live. Is this supposed to be newsworthy? Indeed, I recently met a local DEA agent at a social function. I asked him about the report and it turned out he was actually mentioned in it. His take: "We were sitting in a stake out and someone came up to our car. It seemed totally random". Rolston has already done a thorough job of explaining why the DEA report does not support Schröm's conclusions. Read his work, I don't have much more to add. Furthermore, a March 6, 2002 WaPo article (written by the same author as the November 2001 article cited above) also dismisses the DEA report and quotes a DOJ official that calls the Israeli spy ring story an "urban myth".

There may indeed be a story somewhere about Israeli espionage in the US and about Israeli warnings about terrorism prior to 9/11. But Schröm's article doesn't make a good case. Of course most journalists will feel obligated to protect their sources. Sometimes that protection helps make more information available to the public. Sometimes it only serves the interests of the source and the journalist. And either way, readers should be skeptical of any story that relies heavily on confidential sources, especially when the story's public sources turn out to lack credibility or relevance, as is the case here.

UPDATE: Thanks to Bill Herbert for sending me the LA Times and WaPo articles. Also be sure to read his entry in the comments.

If any reader can locate anything more on the CIA and German TV reports that Schröm mentions, kindly let me know and I will link to them.

Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 11, 2003 05:44 PM