What We Learned in 1993
By ANDREW MCCARTHY AND LAURIE MYLROIE May 8, 2008 New York Sun
www.nysun.com/arts/what-we-learned-1993

On April 23, The New York Sun published a review by Laurie Mylroie of
"Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad" by Andrew McCarthy. As a U.S.
attorney, Mr. McCarthy had led the 1995 prosecution of Sheik Omar Abdel
Rahman in the wake of the 1993 World Trade Center bombings, and his memoir,
published by Encounter Books, recounts that experience.

In her review, Ms. Mylroie wrote that Mr. McCarthy "does not emphasize
sufficiently the degree to which the extremists were penetrated by the
intelligence agencies of several states," and argued that the prosecutorial
focus on convicting terrorists blinded American officials - and the American
public - to the threat of state-supported terrorist activity. Writing on
National Review Online, where he is a contributor, Mr. McCarthy objected to
Ms. Mylroie's characterization of his book and his work as a prosecutor. We
invited the two writers to continue their debate in these pages.

* * *
The Sun tasked Laurie Mylroie to review my new book, "Willful Blindness: A
Memoir of the Jihad." She produced not a review but a regurgitation of the
same half-baked theories she's posited for 15 years.

These drive her to distort the evidence against jihadists such as Omar Abdel
Rahman, the notorious "blind sheik" and the force behind radical Islam's
declaration of war against America in the 1990s. Best captured by her
preposterous claim that the case against Abdel Rahman (which I prosecuted)
was "weak," these distortions are compounded by a mulish refusal to
understand the indictment.

Ms. Mylroie tells readers that Judge Michael Mukasey, now the attorney
general, stated that Abdel Rahman was "not charged with committing the World
Trade Center bombing," which she takes to mean he was not involved. But
Judge Mukasey was merely making a legal distinction between the uncharged
substantive crime of bombing and two conspiracy crimes that were charged:
seditious conspiracy to levy war against America and bombing conspiracy.
Both alleged that Abdel Rahman and some other defendants were behind the
bombing. Not only were they convicted; Judge Mukasey specifically found at
sentencing that they had been complicit in the attack, which is why their
sentences were so severe. That conclusion was emphatically affirmed on
appeal.

Far from weak, the case against Abdel Rahman was overwhelming. He was on
tape ordering a plan to bomb American military installations and exhorting
underlings to emulate Hezbollah's 1983 murder of 241 U.S. Marines. The
evidence on charges that he conspired to murder, and solicited the murder
of, the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, was so irrefutable that his
lawyers were reduced to arguing for jury nullification, conceding that the
sheik wanted Mr. Mubarak ousted "by any means necessary."

Finally, Ms. Mylroie's claim that I sought to obscure evidence of Sudanese
terror sponsorship is absurd. The participation of Sudanese diplomats in the
spring 1993 plot to bomb New York City landmarks was elaborately proved at
trial. We cited two diplomats (who were expelled) and the Sudanese U.N.
mission itself as potential unindicted co-conspirators. We showed Sudanese
involvement in not only the landmarks plot but a plan to murder Mr. Mubarak.
And I later wrote a feature article for the Weekly Standard, "The Sudan
Connection - The Missing Link in U.S. Terrorism Policy," which contended
that President Clinton's much-criticized 1998 cruise-missile attack against
Sudan following the American embassy bombings was justified - chiding the
Clinton administration for failing to defend itself by recounting the rich
record of Sudanese terror complicity we had proved at trial.

Ms. Mylroie addresses none of this. She misrepresents my work, which urges
both my long-held view that criminal prosecution is an inadequate response
to jihadism and that state sponsorship is a significant concern. Hers is not
a review of my book but a rehash of her own dubious musings.

Andrew C. McCarthy
* * *
Andrew McCarthy's book "Willful Blindness" demonstrates little understanding
of the terrorist threat beyond the narrow perspective he held as a
Clinton-era prosecutor. Perhaps, in view of his protests, writing the book
involved a regression to that time. The book says little about state
involvement in terrorism - defining the threat as Islam itself - and
assaults even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, who has been helpful in Iraq.

The case against Sheik Omar was indeed weak. That initial weakness was
overcome by linking different "crimes" into one conspiracy, built around one
man, Sheik Omar. ("It would be a challenge to find charges that would both
fit our evidence and overcome inevitable First Amendment protests," Mr.
McCarthy writes in his book.) Mr. McCarthy's focus on Sheik Omar limits our
understanding of the role of states in plots associated with him. For
example, Mr. McCarthy appears so fixed on his defendants that he fails to
recognize that the evidence he presented at trial suggests that Sudanese
intelligence was significantly more involved in the landmarks plot than
Sheik Omar. This key point is less clear in "Willful Blindness" than
elsewhere.

Mr. McCarthy's clarification of his charges is welcome - he supports me on
an essential point: His defendants were not charged with the "substantive
crime" of bombing the World Trade Center. By any ordinary understanding, in
fact, they were not involved. (Federal conspiracy law is so broad that
limited associations can produce a conspiracy conviction, as experienced
lawyers know.) Indeed, as Judge Mukasey stated, there was "no evidence" any
defendant knew Ramzi Yousef, the plot's mastermind, let alone joined him in
bombing the building. Many Americans mistakenly think Mr. McCarthy
prosecuted the men who bombed the Trade Center. He did not.

During the trial, Judge Mukasey, accommodating the prosecution, ruled that
whether or not Ramzi Yousef was a foreign intelligence agent was irrelevant.
For the purposes of the trial, I can understand overlooking the point. But
for America's defense, whether terrorists have the support of states is a
crucial national security question, particularly as American authorities
have identified the September 11, 2001, mastermind as Yousef's uncle.

Our Middle Eastern allies repeatedly tell us that hostile states are deeply
involved in supporting radical Islamic networks. When it comes to the
Shiites, we recognize Iran's role, but we refuse to consider that Sunni
extremists might also receive crucial assistance from states.

This constitutes a self-inflicted vulnerability, because any party can work
covertly with terrorists to attack us. It reflects our continued adherence
to the Clinton-era concept that a new kind of non-state terrorism emerged in
1993 with the New York bombing plots. President Bush rejected that in
January 2002, with his declaration against "the axis of evil." But we have
since slid back into the Clinton viewpoint, largely because our
bureaucracies strongly resist the notion that their neglect of state
involvement in terrorism may have left us vulnerable on September 11, 2001.

Mr. McCarthy could have performed a useful service had he explained that his
job was merely to convict individuals. Others, he might have told us, were
responsible for determining state sponsorship, and they failed.
Unfortunately, "Willful Blindness" inflates Sheik Omar's trial, presenting
its conclusion as the definitive national security finding on the 1993
bombing plots - rather than the result of a prosecutor cleverly constructing
charges, and presenting facts, to ensure each defendant's conviction and
maximal sentencing.

Laurie Mylroie