By John Ruch
Photo: The FBI's wanted poster for al-Ruqai (from FBI.gov)
Update: U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May has told Parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee that al-Ruqai in fact never had asylum in the U.K. But she was unable to explain why such sources as the FBI--which has stated al-Ruqai's British asylum on his wanted poster for over a decade--think he did. May indicated he applied for asylum, but gave no details on what happened to that request or how al-Ruqai ended up living in the U.K. in any case. I'll have a full update after I receive May's full written comments from the Home Affairs Committee. The FBI press office appears to be closed for the U.S. government shutdown.
Terrorists “can run, but they can’t hide,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in response to the controversial capture of Al-Qaeda suspect Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai in Libya on Oct. 5. It’s a cool action-movie quote, but the truth is that al-Ruqai wasn’t running or hiding at all when he allegedly planned Al-Qaeda’s 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. He was living openly in Manchester, England, as a guest of the British government, granted asylum most likely as a reward for terrorist activities considered valuable to the West. He made pizzas at a local shop at the same time he allegedly made the “Manchester Manual,” Al-Qaeda’s version of “The Anarchist Cookbook.”
This curious asylum has been mentioned only in passing in U.S. news reports, but it is becoming a bigger deal in the U.K. Tomorrow, Oct. 15, a House of Commons committee is set to question the Home Secretary about exactly why this fundamentalist Muslim militant got British protection—and how many others did, too.
“This case raises serious questions about the motives behind asylum and national security decisions in the U.K.,” said MP Keith Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, in a statement reported by Sky News. “It is not the first time that someone who has been brought to the attention of the authorities and released has gone on to be linked to further terrorist activity.”
The American and British governments talk about terrorism in terms of good versus evil, with the terrorists in the role of the devil. But the most dangerous terrorists are more like Frankenstein’s monsters—shaped, trained and aided by the West, only to turn violently on their supposed masters. Osama bin Laden was the ultimate example, his jihad directly backed by the U.S. in the 1980s when he targeted the Soviets. Bin Laden decided to blow up the hand that
fed him only after he felt a U.S. military presence was spoiling the nutty theocracy in Saudi Arabia.
The frenemy syndrome extends to dictatorships, too, with the U.S. and/or U.K. fighting war after war to stop some megalomaniac from doing exactly what we paid him to do for decades. From Manuel Noriega to Saddam Hussein to the Assad dynasty, the pattern continues like a gal who just can’t stop having drunken affairs with bad boys.
When Parliament sticks its foot in this revolving door between Western governments and terrorism, it may well see a militant and a dictator chasing each other through the portal like an old silent comedy movie. Al-Ruqai’s asylum appears linked to his militancy against former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi—another Western BFF-gone-bad who within seven years went from shaking Tony Blair’s hand to being bombed by RAF warplanes.
Al-Ruqai, known by the nom de guerre Abu Anas al-Liby, was born in Libya in the 1960s. By the 1980s, he was in Afghanistan, fighting with bin Laden’s organization in the U.S.-backed Islamic jihad against the Soviets. According to the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, al-Ruqai received military training from an Egyptian-American former U.S. Special Forces soldier.
In the early 1990s, al-Ruqai moved to Sudan and reportedly reunited with bin Laden in the nascent Al-Qaeda.
By 1994, al-Ruqai was back in his home country as a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a militia long since branded by Western governments as an Al-Qaeda affiliate. The militia worked to overthrow or assassinate Gaddafi, who was still an enemy of American and European governments for his state-sponsored terrorism. Gaddafi alleged that the militia was backed by British intelligence agencies, according to the Guardian.
In 1995, al-Ruqai was granted asylum in the U.K. While the details remain a mystery, it surely was based in part on his anti-Gaddafi activity. Libya attempted to block the asylum, according to the Guardian.
While bin Laden and his associates were already well-known terrorist threats, including to President Bill Clinton, al-Ruqai nonetheless was welcomed into the U.K. and settled down in Manchester. The question remains as to whether al-Ruqai continued his anti-Gaddafi militancy. But authorities now claim he promptly began plotting the U.S. embassy attacks at bin Laden’s request. In 1999, the British government had serious second thoughts about al-Ruqai and arrested him on suspicion of terrorism, but released him for lack of evidence. Only then did he run and
hide.
In the following years, al-Ruqai was spotted in two West-allied countries—Afghanistan and Pakistan—and reportedly imprisoned for years by Iran, a Western enemy. Once most welcomed by the British government, he appeared on
the FBI’s debut list of Most Wanted Terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. The FBI’s wanted poster mentions al-Ruqai’s British asylum—and suggests it is technically still active.
Meanwhile, Gaddafi, himself an accomplished terrorist master, morphed into a Western ally against Al-Qaeda. In 2004, Blair shook Gaddafi’s bloody hand, and the U.S. and U.K. began sending captives to Libyan dungeons by “rendition.” Only in 2011, after the embarrassment of the Arab Spring, did the West pivot once again, re-labeled Gaddafi as evil, and joined in bombing him until his murder by militia members.
Just like in post-war Iraq, the power vacuum drew Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist Muslim groups to Libya. Al-Ruqai’s old militia, now known as the Libyan Islamic Movement, had helped bring Gaddafi down and joined in the post-war government.
That is surely why al-Ruqai was spotted last year in Libya—once again joining a Western-backed jihad against Gaddafi. His capture, criticized by the Libyan government as a “kidnapping,” followed.
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, and making deals with unsavory characters is inevitable, the textbooks of realpolitik will tell you. But the wild spinning of the West’s revolving door of terrorism creates a foreign policy that looks positively dizzy. Do we back dictators against fundamentalist terrorists, or fundamentalist terrorists against dictators? Either position looks increasingly untenable, perpetuating terrorism rather than stamping it out.
If there’s a third way to be found, it would help to see the blueprints of how we build these Frankenstein’s monsters in the first place. If the Home Affairs Committee is able to get any kind of real answers, it could be a case study in how terrorists can’t hide—but can get money, weapons, and even asylum. You can watch tomorrow’s “evidence session” for yourself at parliamentlive.tv.
Photo: The FBI's wanted poster for al-Ruqai (from FBI.gov)
Update: U.K. Home Secretary Theresa May has told Parliament's Home Affairs Select Committee that al-Ruqai in fact never had asylum in the U.K. But she was unable to explain why such sources as the FBI--which has stated al-Ruqai's British asylum on his wanted poster for over a decade--think he did. May indicated he applied for asylum, but gave no details on what happened to that request or how al-Ruqai ended up living in the U.K. in any case. I'll have a full update after I receive May's full written comments from the Home Affairs Committee. The FBI press office appears to be closed for the U.S. government shutdown.
Terrorists “can run, but they can’t hide,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said in response to the controversial capture of Al-Qaeda suspect Nazih Abdul-Hamed al-Ruqai in Libya on Oct. 5. It’s a cool action-movie quote, but the truth is that al-Ruqai wasn’t running or hiding at all when he allegedly planned Al-Qaeda’s 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Africa. He was living openly in Manchester, England, as a guest of the British government, granted asylum most likely as a reward for terrorist activities considered valuable to the West. He made pizzas at a local shop at the same time he allegedly made the “Manchester Manual,” Al-Qaeda’s version of “The Anarchist Cookbook.”
This curious asylum has been mentioned only in passing in U.S. news reports, but it is becoming a bigger deal in the U.K. Tomorrow, Oct. 15, a House of Commons committee is set to question the Home Secretary about exactly why this fundamentalist Muslim militant got British protection—and how many others did, too.
“This case raises serious questions about the motives behind asylum and national security decisions in the U.K.,” said MP Keith Vaz, chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee, in a statement reported by Sky News. “It is not the first time that someone who has been brought to the attention of the authorities and released has gone on to be linked to further terrorist activity.”
The American and British governments talk about terrorism in terms of good versus evil, with the terrorists in the role of the devil. But the most dangerous terrorists are more like Frankenstein’s monsters—shaped, trained and aided by the West, only to turn violently on their supposed masters. Osama bin Laden was the ultimate example, his jihad directly backed by the U.S. in the 1980s when he targeted the Soviets. Bin Laden decided to blow up the hand that
fed him only after he felt a U.S. military presence was spoiling the nutty theocracy in Saudi Arabia.
The frenemy syndrome extends to dictatorships, too, with the U.S. and/or U.K. fighting war after war to stop some megalomaniac from doing exactly what we paid him to do for decades. From Manuel Noriega to Saddam Hussein to the Assad dynasty, the pattern continues like a gal who just can’t stop having drunken affairs with bad boys.
When Parliament sticks its foot in this revolving door between Western governments and terrorism, it may well see a militant and a dictator chasing each other through the portal like an old silent comedy movie. Al-Ruqai’s asylum appears linked to his militancy against former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi—another Western BFF-gone-bad who within seven years went from shaking Tony Blair’s hand to being bombed by RAF warplanes.
Al-Ruqai, known by the nom de guerre Abu Anas al-Liby, was born in Libya in the 1960s. By the 1980s, he was in Afghanistan, fighting with bin Laden’s organization in the U.S.-backed Islamic jihad against the Soviets. According to the U.K. newspaper the Guardian, al-Ruqai received military training from an Egyptian-American former U.S. Special Forces soldier.
In the early 1990s, al-Ruqai moved to Sudan and reportedly reunited with bin Laden in the nascent Al-Qaeda.
By 1994, al-Ruqai was back in his home country as a member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a militia long since branded by Western governments as an Al-Qaeda affiliate. The militia worked to overthrow or assassinate Gaddafi, who was still an enemy of American and European governments for his state-sponsored terrorism. Gaddafi alleged that the militia was backed by British intelligence agencies, according to the Guardian.
In 1995, al-Ruqai was granted asylum in the U.K. While the details remain a mystery, it surely was based in part on his anti-Gaddafi activity. Libya attempted to block the asylum, according to the Guardian.
While bin Laden and his associates were already well-known terrorist threats, including to President Bill Clinton, al-Ruqai nonetheless was welcomed into the U.K. and settled down in Manchester. The question remains as to whether al-Ruqai continued his anti-Gaddafi militancy. But authorities now claim he promptly began plotting the U.S. embassy attacks at bin Laden’s request. In 1999, the British government had serious second thoughts about al-Ruqai and arrested him on suspicion of terrorism, but released him for lack of evidence. Only then did he run and
hide.
In the following years, al-Ruqai was spotted in two West-allied countries—Afghanistan and Pakistan—and reportedly imprisoned for years by Iran, a Western enemy. Once most welcomed by the British government, he appeared on
the FBI’s debut list of Most Wanted Terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. The FBI’s wanted poster mentions al-Ruqai’s British asylum—and suggests it is technically still active.
Meanwhile, Gaddafi, himself an accomplished terrorist master, morphed into a Western ally against Al-Qaeda. In 2004, Blair shook Gaddafi’s bloody hand, and the U.S. and U.K. began sending captives to Libyan dungeons by “rendition.” Only in 2011, after the embarrassment of the Arab Spring, did the West pivot once again, re-labeled Gaddafi as evil, and joined in bombing him until his murder by militia members.
Just like in post-war Iraq, the power vacuum drew Al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist Muslim groups to Libya. Al-Ruqai’s old militia, now known as the Libyan Islamic Movement, had helped bring Gaddafi down and joined in the post-war government.
That is surely why al-Ruqai was spotted last year in Libya—once again joining a Western-backed jihad against Gaddafi. His capture, criticized by the Libyan government as a “kidnapping,” followed.
The enemy of our enemy is our friend, and making deals with unsavory characters is inevitable, the textbooks of realpolitik will tell you. But the wild spinning of the West’s revolving door of terrorism creates a foreign policy that looks positively dizzy. Do we back dictators against fundamentalist terrorists, or fundamentalist terrorists against dictators? Either position looks increasingly untenable, perpetuating terrorism rather than stamping it out.
If there’s a third way to be found, it would help to see the blueprints of how we build these Frankenstein’s monsters in the first place. If the Home Affairs Committee is able to get any kind of real answers, it could be a case study in how terrorists can’t hide—but can get money, weapons, and even asylum. You can watch tomorrow’s “evidence session” for yourself at parliamentlive.tv.