Judicial Watch received the documents in response to a June, 2012, Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against the FBI and the U.S. Department of State (DOS) (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State and Federal Bureau of Investigations (No. 1:12-cv-00893). They are part of Judicial Watch’s ongoing investigation of al Qaeda in the United States, including its current operations and support network.

Materials received by Judicial Watch reveal the following information the FBI regarded as worthy of investigation in its probe of ties between al Aulaqi and the 9/11 hijackers:

• An FBI report dated 9/20/2011 notes that al Aulaqi made purchases at a Texaco in La Mesa, California, “several times a month” over the preceding two years. Reportedly this is the station where hijacker Nawaf al Hazmi worked, as did probable 9/11 co-conspirator Mohdar Abdullah (whose close association with and material assistance to al Hazmi and al Mihdhar is well-documented in the 9/11 Commission’s report).

• An undated FBI report indicates an individual received a check for $281.50 from al Aulaqi and wrote a check for $175 to al Hazmi on July 7, 2001.  There is no additional information about the transactions. The FBI apparently found the transaction to be of investigative interest because, depending on the identity of the intermediary party, it could indicate direct assistance from al Aulaqi to al Hazmi.

• On 9/13/2001, FBI agents took possession of and searched the vehicle al Aulaqi rented in San Diego on 9/8/2001 (which he kept for one day and drove only 37 miles).  While there is no report regarding the results of the search, the action highlights the FBI’s interest in al Aulaqi and suspicions about his trip to San Diego, home to both al Hazmi and al Mihdhar leading up to the attacks.

• An FBI report dated 10/24/2001 indicates that the Bureau became aware three days after the 9/11 attacks (9/14/2001) that al Aulaqi had rented a Mailboxes Etc. mail drop in Falls Church, VA.  The mail box was the subject of a federal grand jury subpoena.

“The more we learn about Anwar al Aulaqi, the more questions arise not only about his activities before and after 9/11, but also about the al Qaeda operational and support network still active in the United States,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “It is now even more concerning that al Aulaqi was invited to the Pentagon after 9/11 and then let go by the FBI despite warrants for his arrest.”

An earlier release of FBI documents obtained by a Judicial Watch FOIA and reported by Fox News suggest that the FBI was aware on September 27, 2001, that al Aulaqi had purchased airplane tickets for three of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers, including mastermind Mohammed Atta. Subsequent to the FBI’s discovery, al Aulaqi was detained and released by authorities at least twice and had been invited to dine at the Pentagon.

In 2010, President Obama reportedly authorized the assassination of al Aulaqi, the first American citizen added to the government’s “capture or kill” list, describing the radical Muslim Cleric as “chief of external operations for al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).” The Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department has reportedly determined that targeting and killing of U.S. citizens overseas was legal under domestic and international law.

Feisel Abdul Rauf, head of the American Society for Muslim Advancement and the Cordoba Initiative, is accused of swindling donation funds intended for the Ground Zero mosque to enjoy an extravagant lifestyle with a New Jersey gal pal and his wife, according to a New York newspaper report. Some of the cash was spent on a luxury sports car, lavish vacations, personal real estate and entertainment. Rauf fleeced the Malaysian government for $3 million and a Westchester County couple for $167,000, according to a lawsuit cited in the article.

Rauf is the figure behind the proposal to build a massive mosque and Muslim community center in the shadow of Ground Zero, the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks in Manhattan. Back in 2010 Judicial Watch obtained records from New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s office that show the mayor was instrumental in helping Rauf obtain approval for the contentious project. The documents, which JW had to sue to get, show that Bloomberg’s office was working hand in glove with the Muslim activists driving the unpopular Ground Zero mosque project.

The mayor’s support may seem unbelievable considering Rauf is a radical Islamist, who blames America for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The imam has made a number of controversial statements regarding Islamic extremism, particularly the 2001 attacks. For example, during a 60 Minutes interview about 9/11, Rauf said: “I wouldn’t say that the United States deserved what happened. But the United States’ policies were an accessory to the crime that happened…we have been an accessory to a lot of innocent lives dying in the world. In fact, in the most direct sense, Osama bin Laden is made in the USA.”

Rauf has also compared the Declaration of Independence to Sharia law, the authoritarian doctrine that inspires Islamists and their jihadism, and he claims that Islamophobia in the U.S. is driven by racism. “There are individuals who are working very hard to promote fear and antagonism towards Islam and Muslims in this country,” Rauf said just a few months ago. “It’s fueled, in part, by the first African-American president that we have. Obama’s father was a Muslim and people have used this to arouse hostility against him.”

The mainstream media insists, however, that Rauf is a leading moderate Muslim leader in the U.S. A 2010 Time Magazine story says he’s the kind of Muslim leader “right-wing commentators fantasize about; modernists and moderates who openly condemn the death cult of al-Qaeda and its adherents…” A piece published by National Public Radio last May refers to Rauf as a moderate voice in America. A more realistic assessment seems to be outlined in a New York paper’s series about Rauf’s rise and fall.

Defendant-Appellant Afghanistan appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia denying without prejudice its motion to vacate entry of default and to dismiss the complaint…we agree with the district court that Plaintiff-Appellee John Doe’s suit is properly considered under the noncommercial tort exception to foreign sovereign immunity provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(5).

Because factual issues persist with respect to whether the Taliban’s actions in allegedly agreeing to facilitate the attacks of September 11, 2001, are properly considered to be the action of Afghanistan and as to whether any such actions were “discretionary” under § 1605(a)(5)(A), we remand the case for jurisdictional discovery…

The “noncommercial tort exception” to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act provides that a foreign state shall not be immune from liability in any case “in which money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury…occurring in the United States and caused by the tortious act or omission of that foreign state….” Lawyers for Afghanistan argued that a country can only be held accountable for terrorist acts if the country is on the State Department’s list of terrorist supporting countries, an interpretation of the “noncommercial tort exception” the district court said would lead to an “absurd” result Congress could not have intended. (Afghanistan had not been on the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism on 9/11.)

“We are pleased the court was not persuaded by the State of Afghanistan’s ridiculous interpretation of the law. The State of Afghanistan is certainly responsible for the attacks of 9/11 and the murders of nearly 3,000 innocents, including the wife of our client. After nearly 10 years, we look forward to finally being able to make the case for our client in court. It is beyond belief, frankly, that Afghanistan has yet to be held accountable in court for 9/11,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

“John Doe’s” wife was attending a meeting on an upper floor of the south tower of the World Trade Center when United Airlines flight 175 struck the tower several floors below. “Jane Doe” was 47 years old at the time of her death and was survived by her husband and their two children.

In December 2001, Judicial Watch filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of “John Doe” with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Bin Laden and the State of Afghanistan “for conspiracy and wrongful death under the noncommercial tort exception of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).” In 2003, the court clerk filed a default against Afghanistan for failing to respond to the lawsuit. Afghanistan eventually did respond in 2004, moving to vacate the default and filing a motion to dismiss the lawsuit. In September 2008, the U.S. District Court “denied without prejudice” Afghanistan’s motion to dismiss, leading to the appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.