THE WATCHMAN - A Bi-weekly Publication of Mem Research
Vol. I No. 1
October 28, 2001
"Except the LORD keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain." - Ps. 127:1

This is the first issue of the Watchman, a bi-weekly newsletter. Many of you are getting this issue without having requested it. I have, however, had some kind of contact with each recipient in the past, with the exception of members of the government and media. You may feel either lucky or annoyed that you are receiving this newsletter. In the former case, please forward this message to those that weren't as lucky and encourage them to subscribe. In the latter case, please accept my apologies and reply to this message with a subject line of "unsubscribe."

October 26
Anti-Terrorism Bill Signed by President Bush (CNN)

October 19
Surface-to-Air Missiles Reportedly Smuggled into U.S. (From the Wilderness)

October 17
Rigged Game - House considers inquiry regarding what the intelligence community knew prior to the attacks, instead adopts proposal by Representative J. Porter Goss, "former" CIA officer (Online Journal).

"Narco-Dollars for Dummies" by Catherine Austin Fitts
How dominant is the black market in the American economy? How much influence does it have over U.S. politics? It's a simple matter of mathematics.

"Why would Osama bin Laden want to kill Dubya, his former business partner?" by James Hatfield
The Online Journal has reposted this article, originally published just days before the author's apparent suicide on July 18th of this year. Hatfield, you may recall, was the author of Bush biography "Fortunate Son," a book which his original publisher recalled for burning. Draw what connections you will between this article (which points out George W. Bush's business ties to a member of the bin Laden family), the author's subsequent death, and the terrible situation the United States finds itself in today. In calling Osama bin Laden George Bush's "former business partner," Hatfield paints with a pretty broad brush, but the article raises some interesting questions - made even more intriguing by his death. Was he close enough to the mark to have precipitated his murder?

McCoy, Alfred W. 1991. The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade. Brooklyn: Lawrence Hill Books.
Read it AGAIN, particularly regarding the Afghan War.


With the majority of the September 11th hijackers now identified as Saudi nationals, attention should be given to the possible role of the Saudi Arabian government in the attacks and to their known financial support of Islamic terrorism. "The cover of their complicity has been removed," said a guest on CNBC Thursday night. But will American political and financial entanglements in Saudi Arabia prevent an earnest investigation?

Osama bin Laden was, until the revocation of his citizenship in 1994, a Saudi Arabian citizen. The stated purpose of his war on America is to drive U.S. troops from that country, the land of Mohammed and Mecca. The displeasure of many Muslims at the American presence in the Islamic Holy Land is something that until recently the US government has studiously ignored - even covered up. American occupation on its present scale began in 1991 during the Gulf War and has made America a target ever since. Perhaps the government's silence regarding this fact is linked to its potential embarrassment over the long decade during which US-led sanctions have prevented Iraq from getting necessary medical supplies. Innocent Iraqis of all ages have been dying due to the sanctions, and the evidence suggests that Iraq has long been allied with bin Laden's mujaheddin and with other Saudi extremists to have its vengeance.

On November 13, 1995 seven people were killed when a bomb exploded at the U.S. training mission in Riyadh. This incident followed a threat faxed to Iraqi-owned London paper earlier that year stating that "crusader forces" and influential members of the Saudi royal family would be attacked if foreign forces did not leave the country by June 28. The threat was repeated on Iraqi state radio the following day. After the June deadline passed, the same paper reported receiving a second fax from the "Islamic Change Movement" declaring that the attacks would soon begin.

On June 25, 1996 nineteen American military personnel were among those killed when another bombing took place in Dharan. The size of the Dharan bomb indicated state sponsorship, with the two main suspects being Iraq and Iran. In October of that year, American authorities leaked word that their suspicions focused on Osama bin Laden, who had reportedly been in contact with Iraqi intelligence. President Clinton vowed "to make sure those responsible are brought to justice."

Breaking their long silence since the Riyadh bombing, the "Islamic Change Movement" surfaced again on July 16, faxing a message to Al Hayat, a London-based paper owned by Saudi Arabia's Prince Khalid. According to an April 1997 article in The American Spectator (which I have already paraphrased extensively):

"The message took credit for the Riyadh and Dharan bombings . . . and concluded, 'The movement will give a decisive reply to the threats of the stupid American president and everyone will be surprised by the size of the response and the mujahedin's choice of the time and place. The invaders must prepare to leave alive or dead. Their appointment is the morning. Is the morning not near?'

"The next day was Iraq's national day. Saddam's speech that morning was the most ferocious he had given since the Gulf War. . . Within hours, TWA Flight 800 exploded off the coast of Long Island. Never before had a plane, without warning or indication of any malfunction whatsoever, dropped from the sky, amid a fireball, no less . . . [without the cause having been] terrorism."

On August 15, 2000 the "TWA Eyewitness Alliance" ran a half-page ad in the Washington Times declaring that "We Saw TWA Flight 800 Shot Down By Missiles - And We Won't Be Silenced Any Longer" (this advertisement can be viewed at What was the government attempting to accomplish by ignoring evidence of terrorism? To avoid public demand that US forces return home from Saudi Arabia? To keep attention from being drawn to the sanctions against Iraq, which by then even former Attorney General Ramsey Clark was publicly denouncing? To avoid public curiosity about Osama bin Laden, a drug-smuggling monster created by the CIA during the Afghan War? Or to avoid the very crisis in which we now find ourselves?

The bombings of two U.S. embassies and the USS Cole have followed since that time, with the U.S. government finally beginning to strike back and growing ever more accusatory of Osama bin Laden - but still careful to avoid discussion of the policies that seem to be precipitating these attacks: the occupation of Saudi Arabia and sanctions against Iraq.


Despite the evacuation of the offices of the House of Representatives, the House passed an 'Anti-Terrorism' bill on Wednesday by a vote of 357-66. According to one of the dissenters, Robert Scott (D-VA), the bill aggravates already-existing provisions for wiretapping without a warrant; the new bill makes evidence thus gathered admissible in criminal prosecutions.

At 8 P.M. ET the same day, Fox News' Charles O'Reilly carried on an argument with Scott, loudly and repeatedly insisting that constitutional protections must be pushed aside because we are "at war."

The bill passed the Senate on Thursday by a vote of 98 to 1, with Senator Russ Feingold as the lone dissenter. Called the "U.S.A. Patriot Act," it was signed into law by President Bush on Friday the 26th. Attorney General Ashcroft, who had requested the bill, gave early instruction to federal law enforcement officials to take advantage of the new legislation the very hour that it passed into law.


The trail of evidence in the September 11th attacks leads to more suspects than Osama bin Laden and his army of religious fanatics. At the Mad Cow Press website ( and in the electronic newsletter of the same name, journalist Daniel Hopsicker reports the connections between the South Florida mob and members of the Saudi royal family. Hopsicker also reports that the suicide pilots were trained at U.S. military bases, likely at the behest of the Saudi Arabian government. We already know that the bin Laden family owns the contracting business favored by the Saudi royal family and that one of the bin Ladens was a partner in George W. Bush's first energy company. All three of these parties (the Bushes, bin Ladens, and the House of Saud) figure heavily in the BCCI banking scandal of 1991 and the U.S.' former war in Afghanistan against the Soviets. The same three parties, as well as BCCI, have much to do with the drug trafficking that occurred in Pakistan during the Afghan War. During that time, the U.S. was inundated with South Asian heroin as a result of CIA support for the opium-growing Mujahideen and the Pakistani military, which operated the heroin labs across the border.

It was the Saudi royal family to which the Reagan administration turned to keep the Nicaraguan contras together while the National Security Council and CIA organized round-trip flights between Central America and the U.S., with guns going south and cocaine coming back north. CIA and drug trafficking? That brings us full circle to the South Florida mob, which has worked in that business hand-in-hand with the Bushes and the CIA since before the days of Castro's revolution in Cuba (See "Rogue Elephant" by this author at ).

And now we come to Southern Air Transport. For those unfamiliar with the CIA's drug-smuggling proprietary airline, a brief history is in order. Southern Air Transport, based in Florida, flew cocaine into the US from Central America during the Iran-Contra years. The flights were often manned by former Air America pilots, Air America being the CIA-owned airline which flew raw opium from the hills of Laos to refineries in Vientiane and Saigon during the Vietnam conflict. Air America grew out of Civil Air Transport, the airline which had performed the same service for Chiang Kai-Shek's Nationalist Chinese forces in the 1940s and 1950s. Mike Ruppert ( reports that Southern Air Transport and many similar enterprises were already in position in Uzbekistan, Afghanistan's opium-producing neighbor, before the September 11 attacks. Vietnam and Iran-Contra conspirator Richard Secord is reported to have traveled to Uzbekistan's capital, Tashkent.

Mike also quotes the Wall Street Journal (Sept. 28, 2001) regarding another Bush family tie to the Bin Ladens: "George H.W. Bush, the father of President Bush, works for the bin Laden family business in Saudi Arabia through the Carlyle Group, an international consulting firm." And we might begin to wonder: is Osama bin Laden the "black sheep" of his family or is that just a convenient story meant to cover an uglier reality? Family is family, and the bin Laden family may be of two minds on this issue, just as the House of Saud is sharply divided between those who value their close relationship to the U.S. and those who cannot tolerate our presence.

At Mad Cow and also at Global Research (, we read that the mob and the CIA have been doing business with the very terrorists that the Bush administration is promising to eradicate.

Given the history of the above individuals and institutions, we must consider the possibility that elements of the CIA, the Bush family, the Florida mob, the House of Saud, and the Bin Laden family are playing both sides of this conflict and playing us for fools. Do they and their bankers stand to make several fortunes in heroin? Stay tuned.


It's the word on everyone's lips and the problem on everyone's mind. In their October 29 issue, US News and World Report titled its coverage of the phenomenon "Tools of Mass Distraction: An outbreak of terror that dances on the head of a pin." As the average American sits down to watch the news in the evening, he or she cannot avoid coverage of the Anthrax scare. Let us click through the news channels on our local cable system together, hoping to find something else.

Click. MSNBC. Do we find a discussion of the US sanctions against Iraq and how many deaths are caused by Iraq's shortage of medical supplies? No. It's the postmaster general telling America that he cannot guarantee the safety of the mail.

Click. CNBC. Ari Fleischer, White House Press Secretary. Perhaps he will tell us what stance the administration is taking with regard to Saudi Arabia's sponsorship of Islamic terrorists? Nope. He's "clarifying" the remarks made by the postmaster general.

Click. CNN. Coverage of the Northern Alliance's involvement in the heroin trade? Nope. More anthrax coverage.

Click. Fox News. Some mention of the Florida recount showing that Al Gore won the election after all? I didn't think so.

And so it goes on.

Now let us for a moment place ourselves in the shoes of the party perpetrating the anthrax scare. Since we still don't know who is mailing this material, let us first assume that we are an Islamic terrorist cell bent on breaking America's will. If we were terrorists trying to achieve some political aim, would we prepare envelopes containing a "non-weaponized" form of anthrax - a non-contagious disease - and then mail them to high-profile Americans, failing to make any demands or to even claim credit for our deeds? Or would we instead do something that we are good at, like placing car bombs in areas of high traffic? After all, killing as many infidels as possible is supposed to be what this is all about. And bombs are much cheaper than bio-weapons. Anyone can make a bomb, but to get access to bio-weapons, you would have to be a government or something . . . Anthrax doesn't sound like the rational choice for us to make, does it?

Let us then try another assumption. If we were a white-collar criminal cabal trying to cover our complicity in the September 11th attacks and to distract the public from a developing heroin-smuggling operation in Asia Minor, while keeping real damage at a minimum, would we place car bombs in areas of high traffic or would we mail envelopes containing a non-weaponized form of a non-contagious disease to several high-profile Americans?


On October 10th, Narco News published an article by Stan Goff ("The So-Called Evidence Is A Farce," which is a worthwhile read. I was, however, disappointed to find that Goff's September 11th chronology of events is contradicted by all other accounts. Goff went into some detail to argue that the government's response was inordinately and suspiciously slow - which it was - stating that "Four planes [were] hijacked and deviate[d] from their flight plans, all the while on FAA radar. The planes [were] all hijacked between 7:45 and 8:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time." This does not agree with the Reuters chronology, for instance, which puts the hijacking of Flight 11 at 8:20 AM, nor with other accounts which state that two of the doomed flights did not even take off until at least 8:15. According to U.S. News and World Report, Flight 93 sat on the tarmac at Newark International until 8:43. I am uneasy with the rapidity with which Goff's assessment was repeated by some of the best alternative news sources on the internet.

That notwithstanding, the question still looms as to why Flight 77 was not intercepted before it struck the Pentagon - a full 45 minutes after deviating from its scheduled flight path, an hour after the first crash, and half an hour after the second airliner struck the World Trade Center. Does America have no air defense for the center of its military activity, even after previous threats had surfaced?

NBC's Bob Arnot ( wrote on September 12: ". . . If a plane deviates by 15 degrees, or two miles from that course, the flight controllers will hit the panic button. They'll call the plane, saying 'American 11, you're deviating from course.' It's considered a real emergency, like a police car screeching down a highway at 100 miles an hour. When golfer Payne Stewart's incapacitated Learjet missed a turn at a fix, heading north instead of west to Texas, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched.

"F-16 interceptors can fly alongside a plane to see who's flying it. They can also try to force it off course. Once it is apparent that it is not following directions, it might be forced over the ocean or to a remote airport - or even shot down. The intent with Stewart's plane was to shoot it down if it was going to crash into a major populated area.

"Clearly, the Air Force had the capability and the training to intercept the American and United flights that hit the World Trade Center," Arnot wrote, but the Air Force did not have sufficient time. What, then of the Pentagon? Is forty-five minutes to an hour not enough warning time to protect the core building of the U.S. military? Something still defies explanation.


Earlier this month there was discussion of the September 11 passenger lists published by the airlines; more to the point, there was puzzlement over why the number of reported dead did not match the number of names on the lists ( There was speculation over how the hijackers could have been missed by the head count at the beginning of the flight and/or how they could have bypassed check-in. And if they did not check in, how could they have been identified by the FBI and accounted for among the dead?

The simplest explanation - though not yet supported by documentation or testimony - is this:

1) All but one of the hijackers probably went through the normal check-in procedure with a falsified photo ID. One used his real name.

2) Accepting for the moment that there were 19 hijackers, they and the others missing from the published passenger lists could be accounted for in the fact that the passenger lists in question were published by the airlines in more or less the same form on the 13th of September as "partial" passenger lists. (example: ) Some passenger names would not have been released at that point because next-of-kin had not been notified. Of course, the 19 hijackers names would likely fall in that category because of the false identities used to board the planes. Hence their absence from the lists.


I hope to make the book review a regular feature. I'll start with this review, which is an expanded version of something I wrote this April. Six months later, this still looks like the book of the year:

"Barry & 'The Boys'" by Daniel Hopsicker

The few who managed to get the first copies in January 2001 know that "Barry and the 'Boys'" seems likely to be the year's most explosive book . . . if it gets read. Not only does Hopsicker conclusively link infamous drug trafficker Barry Seal to Kennedy assassination figures Dave Ferrie and Lee Harvey Oswald - not only does he publish a photo showing Seal with Watergate criminal Frank Sturgis and Iran-Contra figure Felix Rodriguez in 1963 - but he provides so many other nuggets that "Barry and the 'Boys'" is indispensable to anyone seriously seeking to understand how the above scandals and others like them have all been related. It's all there - from OSS operations in wartime Burma to the political intrigue that still haunts Bill Clinton's Arkansas.

If you had read the book earlier this year, there would be a ring of familiarity to Hopsicker's latest article mentioning the Saudi royal family and the Florida mob. In a chapter called "Alvin of Arabia," we read that Alvin Malnik's son married the granddaughter of King Abdul Aziz. Malnik was the attorney for mob financial guru Meyer Lansky, who competed with Santos Trafficante for control of the Florida and Cuba drug traffic for many years.

Though it has more information than even the most avid researchers can readily absorb, Hopsicker's style makes the book a good read for anyone interested in the darker side of American politics. "Barry and the 'Boys'" confirms beyond any doubt what many now suspect: that the history of American power politics in the later 20th century is the history of the CIA and drug trafficking. For those who must know which forces truly shape American history and politics, "Barry and the 'Boys'" is required reading.


Send your comments to:

Regarding the Mem Research Home Page:

"So far your access counter on the home page only documents 815 hits. . . This is most unfortunate. Your writing style is clear, concise and authoritative. . . Thank you for your contributions toward a greater awareness of the criminality and consequences for our nation and the world."

- Mike Wells

Regarding the forthcoming Mem Research publication, "It's the Economy, Stupid" :

"I . . . find it hard to associate with the type of state-bashing that simmers between the lines. In my opinion it is exactly this hatred against the state that fuels a vicious circle in which crime and criminal justice/ repression become the core parameters of state-society relations, instead of aiding the creation of a system of interlocking stakeholders, mediated and regulated by the state."

- Hans van der Veen, author of "The International Drug Complex"

THE WATCHMAN is a bi-weekly publication of Mem Publishing/Mem Research
(c) 2001 Kent G. Heiner. This document may be distributed freely in its complete form.
MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 28247 Bellingham, WA 98228
Mem Publishing is the sole proprietorship of Kent Heiner.
Mr. Heiner holds a degree in international relations from Brigham Young University and specializes in international crime.
Send comments to:
To subscribe: send e-mail to with subject line of "subscribe"
To unsubscribe: send e-mail to with subject line of "unsubscribe"

For monthly subscription by USPS: send $25 per year to our mailing address. Guaranteed anthrax-free or your money back.