On the first anniversary of September 11, Richard Bernstein in the New York Times described the 1993 bombing as "the linchpin of September 11." He claimed that the pork-lover/coke-fiend Mohammed Atta had “met” with one of the patsies of the ’93 bombing, Ramsi Youssef. Apparently this alleged meeting was supposed to prove something, or at least buttress the official account. It does not.

The 1993 bombing was a classic case of a “sting operation” gone wrong – or right – depending on whether you see terrorist atrocities as something to prevent or rather actively encourage. The FBI obviously holds the latter view. As most of us are now aware, the man sent to recruit patsies for the “dry run” of September 11th was an Egyptian intelligence agent named Ali Salem. He also happened to be working as an informant for the FBI. A Mossad operative named Guzie Hadas provided the rental van. The FBI provided the explosives. Salem was ensured that the bombs were duds. They weren’t.

A senile and bat-blind Egyptican cleric whom the CIA had worked with previously during “Operation Cyclone” took the rap for the bombing. He had no part in it whatsoever; his crime was failing to inform the authorities of Salem’s plan when petitioned. In other words, he was held responsible for failing to inform the bombers of their impending bombing.

What I find most interesting about the ’93 atrocity is that it is a case study in the modus operandi of the old white men behind “Al-Qaeda” and “The Strategy of Tension” in general. The Oklahoma case, in retrospect, seems to have followed a similar pattern: McVeigh was apparently some sort of mentally unstable sheep-dipped explosives grunt working for the FBI. OKC was set up as a “sting operation” to ensnare militia types enraged over Waco and ended up a day care bloodbath – in other words, a smashing success. It is unclear how many patsies apart for Terry Nichols they were able to recruit – perhaps none, apart from McVeigh itself. The “superpatriot” was hung out to dry.

Much like Ali Mohammed. Ali worked for both the CIA and FBI. He purportedly organized the “Al-Qaeda” bombings in North Africa. No doubt, his actual role was much like McVeighs and Salem’s – to recruit patsies while the Mossad or some other subcontractor carried out the bombings themselves. Unfortunately, as KSM has recently learned, working with the CIA is rather like allowing a pet rattlesnake to roam around one’s apartment: sure, it MAY not bite you, but the odds are definitely not in your favor.

Mockingbirds like Peter Lance are fond of attributing these startling series of “coincidences” to monumental blunders on the part of intelligence, but the phrase “fool me once” comes to mind. There is an unmistakable pattern here of Western intelligence agencies carrying out terrorist attacks under the guise of “sting operations” and “war games”. The Canadian case, although it did not involve any real bloodshed, was particularly egregious in that most of the patsies were teenagers. CSIS, Canada’s low-rent intelligence agency, sent an ex-military man with dark skin down to the local mosque and recruited a bunch of wet-behind-the-ears wannabe jihadists.

Question: would these wannabe jihadists (whose crime was to brag about how they would like to behead the prime minister) have become wannabe jihadists without the coaxing of CSIS? Probably not. All those kids needed was a good talking to. Instead, they’ll probably spend the rest of their lives in prison. The British patsies were either couriers or completely unconnected to any intelligence agency whatsoever. Incidentally, the man accused of masterminding that attack was yet another “informant”, this time for MI6.

But back to the blind Sheik. He's currently rotting away in solitary confinement, no minor punishment for a blind man, and his lawyer is about to join him.

Lynne Stewart was found guilty of a four-count criminal indictment for aiding and abetting terrorism. Her crime? “Specifically, the indictment alleges that Stewart allowed Yousry to communicate with Rahman in Arabic regarding nonlegal matters, and that she purposely made extraneous comments in English that would mask and conceal the Arabic conversation.” In other words, she was trying to defend her client from snooping by government thugs as they were engaging in a frameup. That used to be legal – until 911 came along.

“Unlike FISA and Title III, the new regulation allows warrantless wiretaps - requiring only that "notice" be provided to the attorney and client that they "may" be monitored. And, unlike FISA, the new regulation can be used to target American citizens, even without the suspicion that they are involved in acts that threaten national security.”

Lynne Stewart’s case is a watershed event in American legal history but has received very little attention, even on 911blogger. The goal is to rob people of the right to attorney-client privilege, described as the “core of American jurisprudence” -- and to have a chilling effect on all lawyers who dare defend people accused of “terrorism”.

Unbelievably, the justice department is demanding a thirty year sentence for Stewart’s “crimes”. The judge was apparently not completely bought off so he handed her two years “only”. Her case is now going to the appellate court. The conviction could be overturned, or she could end up in one of those hellholes known as an American prison.

TakingAim interviewed Lynne Stewart last week and I highly recommend listening to the program. She comes across as a decent, courageous person with a great sense of humor.

Here’s the link: takingaimradio.org

To help Lynne Stewart – and yourself – go to LynneStewart.org