WHAT'S UP WITH THE SAUDIS?
West blamed for terrorist attacks
Something really strange is going on in Saudi Arabia, but you wouldn't know
it if your primary source of news is the "mainstream" American media. It is
only just now that they are getting around to reporting the facts, and even
then, as we shall see, only to a limited extent and without bothering to fit
the pieces together. The
interior minister, Prince Nayef, has blamed "foreign parties" for a series of
bombings in the Saudi capital that killed a British man and injured four
others. The London-based Asharq al-Awsat quoted the Prince as saying: "We
know that foreign parties gave the orders to carry out the blasts. We still
need to find out more about these foreign parties that are behind'" the
suspects. These "foreign parties" were not identified, except that the
culprits are "not from Muslim or Arab countries." Furthermore, says Prince
Nayef, the explosive devices used in the bombings were "state manufactured"
or else built under the supervision of some state authority, because "whoever
manufactured them had great knowledge and experience."
TRAIL OF TERROR
Of course, a lot of people in the Middle East have a great deal of knowledge
and experience in how to make and plant a bomb, a fact of which His Highness
cannot be unaware. In the context of the October bombing of the USS Cole, and
the whole history of the ongoing terrorist campaign against Western
"infidels" sullying the sacred territory of Islam's holiest sites, the Riyadh
incident angered but hardly surprised Western governments. A terrorist
campaign seemingly directed at British expatriates in the Saudi kingdom has
been going on since the middle of November 2000. On November 18, the first
bomb blast went off in the Saudi capital, where a British man – Christopher
Rodway, 47, an engineer working at the Saudi military hospital – was killed
by a bomb planted on his automobile. The Saudi authorities reacted by
dismissing an offer from Britain for aid in solving the case. A few days later
, four more Brits – two of them nurses who worked at the same hospital as
Rodway – were injured in a similar bomb blast: this time, the reaction came
from British as well as Saudi officials. The latter assured reporters that
the "the incident is a rare case" – say what? – and authoritatively declared
that it "had no political dimension and was primarily a personal affair,"
while the British Foreign Office chimed in with a similarly lame theory: "The
first thing you think of is a terrorist attack," an anonymous British
diplomat told the London Telegraph, "but the fact that the attacks have both
taken place at the Saudi weekend, and both involved British nationals who
worked in the same hospital, may steer us towards the theory that it may be
some kind of personal motive."
THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
Well, yes, the first thing you think is indeed a terrorist attack, but
apparently the Saudis weren't buying it. The next thing we knew, an American
was being held in connection with the bombings: one Michael Sedlak, an
employee of the Vinnell Corporation – more on them later – had been arrested
and was suspected of ordering the bombings. An American? What's up with that?
As Lewis Carroll put it: "'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice (she was so
much surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good
English)."
EXPATRIATES IN WONDERLAND
The authorities (both Saudi and British) were still pushing the "personal
grudge" theory hard, at this point, with one Saudi princeling averring that
Sedlak "had some problems" with one of the victims: at the same time, a
number of foreigners were rounded up and arrested on some vague
alcohol-related charges, among them Alexander "Sandy" Mitchell, 44, chief
anesthesiologist at a military hospital in Riyadh. The story was put out that
some kind of falling out over money related to smuggling was the motive for
the murders. When the third bomb blast went off, however, the expatriate
community began to suspect that things weren't quite what they seemed: with
Sedlak, the alleged mastermind, in custody, the bomb – a seemingly harmless
fruit juice can placed on the windshield of a car – blinded David Brown, a
British employee of Coca Cola, in one eye and blew off several of his
fingers. Mr. Brown's wife was cited in al-Watan as noting that, immediately
prior to the attack, a man in Arab dress had followed them: another man, she
claimed, had given them "suspicious looks" while they had been shopping in a
market that morning.
OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!
But the Saudis were not about to give up on their personal grudge theory:
instead, without notice to anyone, they paraded Sandy Mitchell and two others
– William Sampson, a Canadian, and Raaf Schifter, a Belgian – in front of
television cameras, where Mitchell and his two friends "confessed" that they
had plotted the bombings. Speaking haltingly, their eye movements obviously
indicating they were reading from a script, all three men gave detailed
accounts of how they blew up their targets using remote controlled devices:
but for all the detail, including maps showing the routes taken by their
victims, one bit of information was missing: what was their motive? Mitchell
said during the eerie broadcast that he was "under orders" to carry out the
attacks, but did not say from whom. The Saudis were similarly close-mouthed,
and our friend Price Nayef refused to even say whether there would be a
trial, noting only that his country would not be "pressured" to spare the
death penalty: in accordance with the barbaric strictures of Shari'a (Islamic
law), the accused will be publicly beheaded.
A FISHY STORY
The news set off a public firestorm in Britain, especially when the father of
Christopher Rodway told the media that he hoped the beheading was carried
out. Mitchell's family and friends rallied around him, and refused to believe
that he and two of his friends were behind the vicious car bombings. British
diplomats were equally skeptical: only a week before, they had been told that
Mitchell and five other Brits were being held for offenses against the Saudi
prohibition of alcoholic beverages and "the next thing we see is this man on
television apparently confessing to murder," said one astonished British
official. There is something very fishy going on here, and it will take some
digging to get to the bottom of it, but please bear with me – because the
story requires some sense of context, and an ability (or willingness) to do
elementary research. No wonder it was completely missed by "mainstream"
journalists, who have barely reported it at all, and certainly not in any
depth. The whole thing seems shrouded in mystery, enveloped in a Saudi (and
British)-generated smokescreen, and the story told by the accused – in their
shaky, stumbling voices – just does not make sense.
THE "TERRORIST" SAMARITAN
For example, Raaf Schifter, emergency coordinator at the King Fahd Hospital
for the National Guard, in his staged "confession" said he accidentally
eavesdropped on a conversation between Mitchell and Sampson about the bomb
plot, and so, to make sure he kept silent they asked him to become complicit
and plant the second bomb! Riding in a car right behind the blast vehicle,
when the bomb went off Shifter jumped out and helped the wounded – hardly
behavior one would expect from a terrorist. The whole story stinks to high
heaven. As one of Shifter's friends put it: "It hardly sounds like a master
terrorist to spend all day drinking with people then blow them up while
you're driving right behind them." Indeed.
THE PLOT SICKENS
A common thread binds the first two bombings: the victims were all connected
to the various military installations maintained by the Americans and the
British: Rodway was an engineer at the Internal Security Hospital in Riyadh;
the second attack wounded two nurses who work at the same hospital, and two
men who worked for a Saudi firm, the Al-Salam aircraft company, which is
half-owned by the Boeing Corporation. Why are Western journalists – and, even
more obscenely, Western governments – standing by and letting those Saudi
savages round up and behead a bunch of Westerners who obviously had no
connection to the bombings and are being rather crudely set up? Curiouser and
curiouser – and curiouser still. As the plot thickens, the implications
sicken.
THE CLINTONIZATON OF THE US STATE DEPARTMENT
And what about Michael Sedlak? Saudi officials assured Western reporters who
bothered to ask that the charges against him, if any, would soon be
"clarified" – but no such clarification has been forthcoming. Instead, the
Saudis have emitted a steady stream of squid-like obfuscation, just like
their British and American counterparts. I can't resist the temptation to
quote extensively from this excerpt from a recent State Department daily
briefing, in which the subject of Sedlak comes up, because it dramatizes
rather vividly the duplicity and cynicism of the US and allied governments,
who are quite willing to throw their own people to the Saudi dogs without any
qualms or even a slight twitch of conscience. A reporter asks about Sedlak's
status, and State Department spokesman Richard Boucher – What? Is that
Clintonian droid still there? – answers that no charges have been filed
against Sedlak, he has been visited by consular officials, and is "well" –
considering that he's very likely to be beheaded. An unnamed reporter says:
"So tell us more, and Boucher replies:
"I think that's about all we know that we can tell you.
QUESTION: "Do we know how long they can hold him under their laws without
charges?"
MR. BOUCHER: "I don't know. I would have to check on that."
QUESTION: "Forever."
QUESTION: "Forever?"
QUESTION: "In China, I think a senior US diplomat – do you want to follow up?"
QUESTION: "Can I ask about one more on Sedlak?: Do you have an age and a
hometown?"
MR. BOUCHER: "Probably not. No, I'm afraid I don't have that, but I'll see if
I can get it for you."
QUESTION: "Has he expressed to you why he thinks they are taking him in,
Richard – or to consular officials, I should say?"
MR. BOUCHER: "Again, we just don't have the information on possible charges
that I can give you."
QUESTION: "Do you know who he worked for in Saudi Arabia?
MR. BOUCHER: "He worked for something called Vinell Corporation, V-i-n-e-l-l."
QUESTION: "Is that "V"?"
MR. BOUCHER: "'V' as in Victor, i-n-e-l-l Corporation."
QUESTION: "Do you know what they do?"
MR. BOUCHER: "No. That I'm sure you can find out."
A USEFUL MAN
That Boucher can stand there in front of reporters and tell such bald-faced
lies is really a skill that any government will find useful, and that
accounts for the continued presence this Clintonian holdover. It is a tribute
to that old saw about how the more things change, the more they stay the same
– especially in the realm of American foreign policy, which has an essential
continuity no matter which party is in power. Although there are no pictures
to go along with this briefing transcript, one can almost imagine the look of
barely-concealed contempt on Boucher's face as he denied all knowledge of the
Vinnell Corporation and added that he was sure they could find out – knowing,
somehow, that they wouldn't bother.
MERCENARIES, INC.
It is highly unlikely that a State Department official of Boucher's rank
would be unaware of the Vinnell Corporation, and the essential services it
provide for US policy makers. Perhaps he needs to be briefed by Vice
President Dick Cheney, formerly CEO of the Halliburton Company, whose
subdivision, Brown and Root, has a lucrative contract to maintain military
bases in Turkey in alliance with Vinnell. Aside from having extensive
contracts in Europe, Vinnell has for twenty years been the subcontractor
awarded the job of training the Saudi National Guard, a kind of Praetorian
guard for the House of Saud, the ultimate insurer of dynastic power. In a
fascinating article, "Mercenaries, Inc.," by William D. Hartung, a senior
fellow at the World Policy Institute at
