Private American Agents Snared Afghan Drug Kingpin

dhcdavid

Ex-Bluelighter
Joined
Mar 24, 2004
Messages
777
Location
uk
After a federal jury in New York swiftly convicted a major Afghan heroin trafficker and Taliban supporter named Haji Bashir Noorzai, the government promptly issued the usual celebratory news release thanking the men and women of the DEA and FBI for their "countless sacrifices" in making the case.

Left out was any credit to the party most responsible for the government's victory: an unusual three-man private intelligence firm called Rosetta Research and Consulting.

At the instigation of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Rosetta agents lured Noorzai to America and delivered him right into the feds' hands. He spent 11 days in an Embassy Suites Hotel in Manhattan in 2005, enjoying room service and considering himself a guest of the U.S. government -- until he was arrested. He was imprisoned for three years awaiting his trial, which concluded in September. He faces up to life in prison when he is sentenced in January.

Noorzai's capture should have been Rosetta's finest hour. Instead, it led to the company's downfall. A close examination of the case reveals how a spy firm trafficking in sensitive intelligence for profit got sandwiched between conflicting government goals: Noorzai, one of the company's best sources, was considered an asset by the intelligence side of the government, even as the law enforcement side considered him a criminal.

The tale reveals some of the rivalries, ugly choices and ironies that permeate this shadowy world. The company that thought it might get a $2 million reward was dragged into an internal Justice Department investigation. The FBI employees who helped the firm ended up in trouble with their own agency.

Rosetta, which spent lavishly in its pursuit of Noorzai, got nothing for arranging his capture and ended up going broke. Investors thought their money was going toward building an anti-terrorism database, not to helping the government snare a drug kingpin.

"I certainly -- my partner and I -- had no idea," said Paul Hanly, a New York lawyer who joined with four others to invest $1 million in Rosetta Research.

The role of Rosetta and its agents was not aired during Noorzai's trial; the topic was ruled off-limits by the judge. Most people connected to the company won't talk publicly about it. Spokesmen for the DEA and Justice Department declined to comment on Rosetta.

Whatever else it was, the sting operation was a unique blending of public and private sector efforts that appears to have taken the outsourcing of federal law enforcement to new levels, according to interviews and internal Rosetta documents reviewed by The Washington Post.

"It's bizarre. I've never heard of anything like that," said Thomas V. Cash of the risk consulting firm Kroll Inc., who during his 25-year career as a top-ranking DEA official presided over the apprehension and conviction of deposed Panamanian dictator Manuel Antonio Noriega. "This case, and how it was totally handled in a new manner, certainly seems to have ignored all I know about international drug investigations."

In the summer of 2003, two businessmen -- Mike A., a former Army captain, and Patrick J., a former Treasury Department financial-crimes analyst -- founded Rosetta. Its mission was to assist in a mammoth legal case filed on behalf of victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks by tracking the flow of terrorist-connected money. The Post is not using the men's full names because of the sensitive nature of their undercover work.

The documents show that another aim of Rosetta's principals was to turn a profit by developing a database of terrorist financial information that could be sold to banks, securities firms and the government.

The main on-the-ground sleuth for Rosetta was Mike A., now 47, a West Point graduate and Special Forces veteran who had worked in war zones in Afghanistan and Iraq, spoke Arabic and cut a swaggering figure.

For Rosetta, Mike A. met with confidential sources overseas, sometimes secretly taping them while they discussed links among the Taliban, al-Qaeda and drug traffickers, according to highly detailed "Project Rosetta Reports" written by its operatives and later obtained by The Post.

Patrick J., now in his early 50s, unraveled intricate money transactions. He was heavyset and more comfortable behind a computer than playing secret agent. Neither would comment for this article.

Mike A. had friends in the Defense Department, including an aide to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Mike A. showed his friend some of the information he was turning up on his travels, including purported documents from fugitive Taliban chieftain Mohammad Omar, internal Rosetta e-mails show; the official checked them out, and they could not be authenticated.

Rosetta also had frequent contact with an FBI agent who had a counterterrorism background and was copied on its reports, according to company documents. (An FBI spokesman said the bureau would not comment on the matter.)

The Rosetta people assigned themselves code names to be used in their reports: R1 for Mike A., R2 for Patrick J. and R3 for Brian M., a retired agent for the Immigration and Naturalization Service who had previously worked for an Afghan wireless company. The FBI agent was given the handle "GM."

In hindsight, Rosetta's future took a major turn when an opium grower it was tracking was designated by President Bush in June 2004 as one of the world's most wanted drug kingpins.

Haji Bashir Noorzai was a hulking, 6-foot-4 bearded Afghan in his early 40s who lived in Quetta, Pakistan, with three wives. Noorzai was chief of a million-member familial tribe in the Kandahar province of Afghanistan.

In an affidavit in his criminal case, he traced a history of cooperating with U.S. officials, including the CIA, dating to 1990. In early 2002, following the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Noorzai said he turned over to the U.S. military 15 truckloads of Taliban weapons, including "four hundred anti-aircraft missiles of Russian, American and British manufacture."

From the perspective of the CIA and Defense Department, Noorzai could be a useful intelligence asset. But law enforcement officials continued to consider him a notorious criminal whose drug proceeds supported militants battling U.S. forces. Rosetta's interest seemed purely commercial: to pump him for information that could be reported back to its clients, the Rosetta documents indicate.

In July 2004, Mike A. and Brian M. set out to woo Noorzai. They spread money around to his friends and were able to meet some of them at the J.W. Marriott in Dubai. By August, the Rosetta agents returned to the Marriott for two days of discussions with Noorzai himself, referred to in their reports as HBN.

"His hair and beard were neatly trimmed," they wrote on Aug. 9. "HBN wore a watch with a silver band and gold bezel. HBN was soft-spoken, had a sense of humor and never lost his temper."

Noorzai flatly denied that he had ever supported al-Qaeda or dealt drugs. "I have never dealt in narcotics," he said, according to transcripts labeled as work product for Motley Rice, a law firm underwriting part of the Rosetta intelligence project. The firm was hoping to use intelligence gathered by Rosetta in its uphill battle attempting to link the Saudi royal family to the Sept. 11 hijackers.

Mike A. was reassuring, telling the translator: "Look, I want Haji Bashir to understand, this project that we're working on is not a counter-narcotics project."

"The goal of this project is not to arrest anybody," Mike A. went on. "It's to gather information that's correct, good information, and develop the kinds of relationships that allow us to successfully confront this problem."

Noorzai agreed to assist the Americans, and said he would travel to the United States if he got a guarantee of safe passage, court documents show. At one point he posed for pictures with his new American friends, giving the thumbs-up sign.

But when the Rosetta operatives arranged for Noorzai to meet with officials from the FBI and the Defense Department, the CIA and the U.S. ambassador in the United Arab Emirates blocked the plans, according to Rosetta e-mails. (A State Department spokesman declined to comment.)

By this time those who had put up money for Rosetta were growing impatient. The lawyers at Motley Rice were looking for some return on their money.

In October, Mike A. assured Motley Rice in an e-mail that government contracts were forthcoming and the FBI would no longer be getting information "for free."

At some point that fall, Rosetta's contacts in the FBI tipped off their counterparts at the DEA that the company had a line in to Noorzai. Ivan Fisher, Noorzai's attorney, said then-DEA Administrator Karen Tandy was eager to bag Noorzai; landing him would reflect well on the Bush administration's anti-drug and anti-terrorism campaigns.

"It was Tandy who changed everything," Fisher said. (Tandy, who left government work last year, declined to comment.)

In January 2005, the Justice Department informed Rosetta that Noorzai was under secret indictment in New York. A debate ensued: Betraying Noorzai to the feds could endanger Rosetta operatives and compromise their informant network. But there was an upside. Rosetta might finally get government contracts. And it could secure some cash by collecting a big reward for Noorzai -- as much as $2 million, Rosetta documents indicate.

Despite misgivings, the company cut a deal with the Justice Department and the DEA to persuade Noorzai to fly to New York, according to court filings. That April, the drug lord was accompanied on his flight from Dubai by Mike A., Brian M. and two Afghan men he presumed to be his confidants, both "in the pay of Rosetta," Fisher said.

When Noorzai got off the plane, he was met by DEA agents, who drove him to his hotel, kept him well fed and talking, and made sure he knew he had a right to an attorney. But Noorzai declined the offer every day, evidently figuring that he had no reason for one: He was there to help his American hosts.

On April 22, Noorzai made calls to his family in Pakistan, telling his mother that he was fine but still busy with his work for the U.S. government, a DEA affidavit states.

The next day, he was told that he was under arrest.

Noorzai's lawyers argued that the government lied and used duplicity to make its case. The government lawyers argued that the capture was legal. The judge agreed.

Before the trial, court documents show, Tandy had nominated the FBI agent who helped Rosetta for an award for his role in making the Noorzai case. Instead, the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General began investigating the agent and another FBI employee for their involvement with Rosetta.

The company's financial records, intelligence reports and e-mails were subpoenaed. The inspector general learned that the FBI employee had obtained information from FBI databases and sent it to Rosetta, in part to "provide information to placate investors," according to one affidavit. That employee also received a house-hunting trip "in anticipation of being hired by Rosetta," the affidavit stated.

The inspector general's office would not release its report, citing a policy protecting privacy rights of "lower-level" employees.

Rosetta never got any reward for Noorzai's capture. Fisher said the company was turned down because Mike A. was also working all along for the U.S. government.


______________________________________________________________

Tangled U.S. Objectives Bring Down Spy Firm



The Washington Post Saturday, December 27, 2008

By Richard Leiby
Washington Post Staff Writer
Staff researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/26/AR2008122602099.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, the article is absolutely correct, both factually and in its implications but I fail to see why the source (i.e. newspaper in this case) even bothered to devote energy to the story. the average reader will not even bother to take it in, let alone think about it and even if they did it would never change a single thing.

People of course argue that journalism is all about giving people the chance to assimilate info they are entitled to but in reality it is about the bottom line, i.e. ad revenue and profit it generates. The article is just filler.

Intel , no matter the nation, has always relied on grey types. Double OU, the famous brand of wholesale heroin was started by such a man, the entire KMT trade was also in this area, much of the Cali Cartel cocaine also came from such types, and so on. The US is the richest nation in the world, has the equipment and personel to erase most of the crop generating most of the world's heroin and yet you will not see much eradication let alone actually going after people in the trade. Why? Political Objectives would not withstand such an assult.

The man at the center of this article was foolish to ever leave his home, let alone check into a NYC hotel but that is the human condition, seeing things the way we wish they were and not as they truly are. So now he is gone, and already I am sure many more are vying for his market share and nothing changes. The US, and eVERY OTHER NATION will still rely on such people, illegal trade will still continue unabated if not increased, and the only real result is that a vaulable Intel asset is not erased. Stupidity all around really...all the more so because practically no Afghan heroin makes its way to the US. It is all smoke and mirrors.
 
Well, the article is absolutely correct, both factually and in its implications but I fail to see why the source (i.e. newspaper in this case) even bothered to devote energy to the story. the average reader will not even bother to take it in, let alone think about it and even if they did it would never change a single thing.

Hit the nail right on the head.
 
Heaven forbid a newspaper should publish something "the average reader" might not immediately take in.

I actively derive joy and a certain element of comfort from knowing there are folk out there in the world, folk such as this article's writers (and newspapers with the balls to publish their work) who sometimes write articles which give readers the opportunity to fills in some blanks themselves and work a little.

Rachamin you make the definitive-sounding statement that in reality journalism is about the bottom line: ad revenue and profit and that the article I posted was just filler and that the average reader will not bother to take it in, let alone think about it and even if they did it would never change a single thing.

And antbanks99 you took the time to post your wholehearted agreement with Rachamin's enormously cynical response to the article I posted.

Saying "the article is just filler" and that journalism is really.......when we strip it down to the bare bones the "bottom line" when it all boils down to it is all about ad revenue and profit; this bottom line opinion of yours which you took the time to think about and then type up for your fellow Bluelighter to read is moving us - and by us I'm referring to Bluelighters in this instance, a diverse cross-section of the human race hailing from all corners of the earth and representing pretty much most interesting, diverse and knowledgable sub-sets of the human race - forward how exactly?

As a Moderator of the "Drugs In The Media" forum it's sometimes my responsibility to find an article about drugs which I believe is sufficiently thought-provoking and stimulating to hopefully be of some interest to my fellow Bluelighters.

Being a new Moderator and a hugely imperfect human being I often make mistakes, get it wrong and always , and I do mean always welcome constructive crticism and feedback.

All I ask in return of my fellow Bluelighters - thinking specifically here about Bluelighters who've read an article I've posted in DITM or on The Front Page - who feel compelled to give feedback about an article's lack of suitablity and/or my failings as a Moderator (especially with regards to The front Page where only DITM Mods can post the articles ) is that they try to keep the feedback - and the manner in which it's presented - as constructive as possible.

Thankyou.
 
Heaven forbid a newspaper should publish something "the average reader" might not immediately take in.

I actively derive joy and a certain element of comfort from knowing there are folk out there in the world, folk such as this article's writers (and newspapers with the balls to publish their work) who sometimes write articles which give readers the opportunity to fills in some blanks themselves and work a little.

Rachamin you make the definitive-sounding statement that in reality journalism is about the bottom line: ad revenue and profit and that the article I posted was just filler and that the average reader will not bother to take it in, let alone think about it and even if they did it would never change a single thing.

And antbanks99 you took the time to post your wholehearted agreement with Rachamin's enormously cynical response to the article I posted.

Saying "the article is just filler" and that journalism is really.......when we strip it down to the bare bones the "bottom line" when it all boils down to it is all about ad revenue and profit; this bottom line opinion of yours which you took the time to think about and then type up for your fellow Bluelighter to read is moving us - and by us I'm referring to Bluelighters in this instance, a diverse cross-section of the human race hailing from all corners of the earth and representing pretty much most interesting, diverse and knowledgable sub-sets of the human race - forward how exactly?

As a Moderator of the "Drugs In The Media" forum it's sometimes my responsibility to find an article about drugs which I believe is sufficiently thought-provoking and stimulating to hopefully be of some interest to my fellow Bluelighters.

Being a new Moderator and a hugely imperfect human being I often make mistakes, get it wrong and always , and I do mean always welcome constructive crticism and feedback.

All I ask in return of my fellow Bluelighters - thinking specifically here about Bluelighters who've read an article I've posted in DITM or on The Front Page - who feel compelled to give feedback about an article's lack of suitablity and/or my failings as a Moderator (especially with regards to The front Page where only DITM Mods can post the articles ) is that they try to keep the feedback - and the manner in which it's presented - as constructive as possible.

Thankyou.

Don't get so upset, man. He was just saying that because most people are shallow, the article is effectively filler. It's sad, but most articles are just filler as a result of this. Then again, these days, newspaper itself is just filler for ads, which they have less of, not articles, for which there are very few readers.

It is sad, but that's what we've come to, I'm afraid.

It's a great article, and he wasn't saying that it wasn't, it really was, but I understand everything he's saying.
 
That gave me a good laugh.

It gave me a better one. I bet most people on here except for a FEW, are never going to get loaded in afganistan:)

Actually though in the old days it was a sick place. The pictures I saw of huge opium pipes and hash....The people were really mellow and cool, but this was like in the 70's ..
 
Top