News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page

NewsMine9-11not-focused-on-terror — Viewing Item

Sudan 1996 binladen offer foiled { October 3 2001 }

Wednesday, October 3, 2001
Washington Post

U.S. Was Foiled Multiple Times in Efforts To Capture Bin Laden or Have Him Killed; Sudan's Offer to Arrest Militant Fell Through After Saudis Said No; [FINAL Edition]
Barton Gellman. The Washington Post. Washington, D.C.: Oct 3, 2001. pg. A.01

'96 bin Laden offer fell through
By Barton Gellman
Washington Post
WASHINGTON - The government of Sudan, employing a back channel direct from its president to the CIA, offered in the spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in Saudi custody, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.

The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at an Arlington, Va., hotel on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later. Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts at the time, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.

Sudan expelled bin Laden on May 18, 1996, to Afghanistan. From there, he is thought to have planned and financed the twin embassy bombings of 1998, the near-destruction of the USS Cole a year ago and the Sept. 11 devastation in New York and Washington.

Bin Laden's good fortune in slipping through U.S. fingers torments some former officials with the thought that the subsequent attacks might have been averted. Though far from the central figure he is now, bin Laden had a high and rising place on the U.S. counter-terrorism agenda. Internal State Department talking points at the time described him as "one of the most significant financial sponsors of Islamic extremist activities in the world today" and blamed him for planning a failed attempt to blow up the hotel used by U.S. troops in Yemen in 1992.

"Had we been able to roll up bin Laden then, it would have made a significant difference," said a U.S. government official with responsibilities, then and now, in counterterrorism. "We probably never would have seen a September 11th. We would still have had networks of Sunni Islamic extremists of the sort we're dealing with here, and there would still have been terrorist attacks fomented by those folks. But there would not have been as many resources devoted to their activities, and there would not have been a single voice that so effectively articulated grievances and won support for violence."

Clinton administration officials maintain emphatically that they had no such option in 1996. In the legal, political and intelligence environment of the time, they said, there was no choice but to allow bin Laden to depart Sudan unscathed.

"In the United States, we have this thing called the Constitution, so to bring him here is to bring him into the justice system," said Sandy Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then. "I don't think that was our first choice. Our first choice was to send him some place where justice is more" - he paused a moment, then continued - "streamlined."

Three Clinton officials said they hoped - one described it as "a fantasy" - that Saudi King Fahd would order bin Laden's swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh. But Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council staff, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps.

"I really cared about one thing, and that was getting him out of Sudan," Simon said. "One can understand why the Saudis didn't want him - he was a hot potato - and, frankly, I would have been shocked at the time if the Saudis took him. My calculation was, 'It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time."'

Conflicting policy agendas on three separate fronts contributed to the missed opportunity to capture bin Laden, according to a dozen participants. The Clinton administration was riven by differences on whether to engage Sudan's government or isolate it, which influenced judgments about the sincerity of the offer.

Ashcroft efforts on terrorism criticized { April 14 2004 }
Ashcroft ignored terrorism { April 14 2004 }
Bush focused on missile defense not terrorism before 911
Canceled rice speech on 911 focused on missile defense
Clark says administration focused on missiles
Clark tells public your government failed you
Clarke rejects attacks by gop { March 25 2004 }
Counter terrorism was backwater for fbi { April 14 2004 }
Missed chances in long hunt for bin laden { March 25 2004 }
Missile defense was focus of rice talk canceled 911 { April 1 2004 }
Paul bremer retracts bush preparation accusations
Refused sudan offer binladen 1996
Rice scapped 911 speech didnt mention alqaeda { September 11 2001 }
Sudan 1996 binladen offer foiled { October 3 2001 }
War on terrorism too general vague { July 23 2004 }

Files Listed: 15


CIA FOIA Archive

National Security
Support one-state solution for Israel and Palestine Tea Party bumper stickers JFK for Dummies, The Assassination made simple