Did intel from Dar lead US to Osama?

Dar es Salaam. Did information that led to the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan in May 2011, originate from an informer in Dar es Salaam? This is the question begging an answer following new claims that a man who tipped off the US security agencies about the whereabouts of bin Laden in Dar es Salaam is now demanding his reward of $27 million.

Fresh details suggest that the informant revealed where bin Laden could be found via the US embassy in Dar in 2005. According to the International Reward Centre (IRC) website, originally the US claimed that bin Laden was located in 2011 using electronic intelligence. However, the website, www.internationalrewardcentre.com, disputes that, asserting that the work was accomplished thanks to an unnamed informant who walked into US embassy in Dar in 2005 to reveal that the then world’s most wanted terrorist was holed up somewhere in Abbottabad, in Pakistan.

But, The Citizen couldn’t independently verify these claims because efforts to get the US embassy officials yesterday proved futile. It is noted that until yesterday, the embassy had remained closed as all top officials had been on their year-end leave since December, last year.

 The IRC doesn’t clearly state how the alleged informant came to know about bin Laden’s whereabouts, but it insists that basing on evidence produced, the source was very valuable for indeed, he had connections with insiders within the al-Qaeda operations.

Fresh claims from IRC

 The IRC, a New Zealand-based company, which is acting on behalf of the informant, has electronic documents which show that an informant supplied the US embassy in Dar with information to the effect that bin Laden was in Pakistan in October 2005.

According to IRC, the informant also supplied the US State Department with the names of terrorist cell leaders in Tanzania, including their modus operandi, plus a brief on al Qaeda’s mission in Tanzania.

For the record, the US embassy in Dar was attacked by suicide bombers on August 7, in 1998, resulting in the killings of 11 people and injuries to 85 others.

“Given the magnitude of the information supplied to the US special agent, whose identity and those of his associates in Dar the website declined to disclose, one would expect the informant’s revelation to set off alarm bells from Tanzania all the way to the US…,” reads part of the report posted on the IRC website.

The website says the special agent never made any further contact with the informant and that’s also what IRC wants to know, and what the US State Department should want to know.

It further says it believes further information could have been readily provided if the US special agent in Dar had been more diligent in his communication with the informant.

 “Can anyone imagine the thoughts that would be going through an informant’s mind after passing on such highly sensitive information, in a land peppered with terrorists, then to receive no follow up communication? He was acting against his own physical safety; he put his life on the line for America, yet he has not received one cent of the $27 million reward offer, no acknowledgement, no call from the State Department, no thank you note, nothing,” the IRC says on its website

According to the IRC, in simplistic terms, the Rewards for Justice (RFJ) policy for the payment of a reward (a), the claimant has to be nominated for a reward by the US State Department employee, the one who receives the informant’s information.

Unfortunately, in this case, the US embassy special agent who received the informant’s revelations works for the US Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security and the RFJ programme is administered by the same US Department of State’s Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

The IRC has tried to contact the special agent to no avail, no reply. IRC have tried to contact the special agent via [email protected], only to be referred to the rules of RFJ on payment of a reward.

IRC have contacted RFJ seeking contact with the US special agent, as well as informant’s documentation.

But after numerous attempts, claims the IRC, the RFJ reply to IRC was “The Rewards for Justice Program cannot confirm any contact with anyone who may or may not be a potential source. The cornerstone of the program is confidentiality of our sources out of concern for their safety.”

IRC sees this as an obstruction to justice. If the IRC information has uncovered the fact that the special agent did not exercise due diligence in 2005, should that be the informant’s problem, or a problem for the US Secretary of State and President Obama to resolve? It argues.

No protection, no reward

the informant gave extremely valuable information to the US State Department, yet he has received no protection, “no concern for his safety” and no reward money.

The US government offered a combined $ 27 million reward for information leading to the capture of bin Laden, dead or alive; the informant provided information, says IRC.

“It wasn’t just electronic intelligence that located Osama in 2011; it was a good citizen in Tanzania who had a moral compass who provided the location of Osama,” says the website document.

IRC has stated that the informant (now client of IRC) did seek to claim monetary compensation for his efforts from RFJ in October 2010, and again in January 2013, and turned to IRC in August 2013 for assistance.

The IRC says it has gone public with this information because it believes it has limited options. This case could be well argued in a court of law at a significant cost; however, the US Secretary of State can exercise his/her own discretion in the rulings, the implied interpretations, and in the payment of rewards on offer.

Furthermore, IRC doesn’t believe this is a case for the court; this is a case calling for a moral judgement by the people of America, now!

The IRC (www.internationalrewardscentre.com) is based in New Zealand. It has been operating for twelve years as an independent, neutral third party in the receiving and the disseminating of information pertaining to terrorists, wanted persons, missing persons, abducted persons, criminal acts, money laundering, and human trafficking.

IRC also makes it quite clear it fully supports RFJ in its cause. What it wants rectified in the rewards processing is, recognition of verified information supplied to the State Department, not the reliance on nomination for reward by some State Department employee.

IRC has said the Article (above) should be open for discussion and it welcomes any communications from those who may wish to contribute further to this article, ‘especially the US State Department’, or to comment on this travesty of justice.