#116 Sarah Adams (AKA Superbad) - CIA Targeter Tracks Down #1 Enemy of Benghazi Attacks
In this episode of the Shawn Ryan Show, guest Sarah Adams highlights growing concerns over terrorist groups exploiting security gaps at the U.S. southern border and forging alliances to expand operations. She claims U.S. aid money is being diverted to terrorist groups in Afghanistan, while some figures allegedly tied to terrorism find safe harbor within the U.S.
Adams also discusses the impact of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan, including allies facing persecution by the Taliban and terrorist groups gaining footholds in the region. She alleges the U.S. lacks transparency regarding terrorist threats and prioritizes politics over security matters. Adams and Ryan explore these issues and their implications for counterterrorism efforts.
This is a preview of the Shortform summary of the Jun 10, 2024 episode of the Shawn Ryan Show
Sign up for Shortform to access the whole episode summary along with additional materials like counterarguments and context.
1-Page Summary
Terrorist threats and movements
Terrorists exploiting U.S. southern border
Discussions reveal concerns about terrorists leveraging technology and smuggling routes to infiltrate from South America, according to Sarah Adams. Terrorists use TikTok and other platforms to coordinate movements and access aid.
Terrorist groups forging alliances and expanding operations
Previously rival groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban are now aligning goals and resources, Adams stresses. They coordinate training, funding, and logistics to carry out attacks.
U.S. funding and support
U.S. funds being diverted to terrorist groups
The U.S. sends aid money to Afghanistan that the Taliban siphons off for operations and allies, Adams highlights. U.S. assets are managed jointly with Taliban representatives, enabling fund diversion.
U.S. harboring terrorists, empowering groups
Adams suggests the U.S. harbors figures like Ahmed Abu Khatalla, perceived as protecting terrorists. She believes U.S. actions undermine counterterrorism by maintaining relationships with these groups.
The Afghanistan situation
Taliban persecuting U.S. allies
Shawn Ryan and Adams reflect on U.S. allies abandoned after withdrawal, facing killings, detentions, and oppression by the Taliban using U.S.-provided biometric data.
Terrorist groups gaining foothold
Al-Qaeda, ISIS-K, and the Haqqani Network have established safe haven, training camps, and alliances in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, increasing attack threats.
U.S. lack of accountability and transparency
U.S. deception on terrorist threats
Adams claims the U.S. misleads on terrorist leaders' statuses, like Hamza bin Laden, to push false narratives. She accuses shielding operatives from justice.
U.S. prioritizing politics over security
Adams and Ryan suggest the U.S. prioritizes political interests over counterterrorism, ignoring Afghan allies' pleas to stop indirectly funding terrorists.
1-Page Summary
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The U.S. collected biometric data, like fingerprints and iris scans, from Afghan citizens and allies to identify individuals. This data was used for security purposes, such as vetting individuals and tracking insurgents. After the U.S. withdrawal, the Taliban gained access to this biometric database, potentially using it to target and oppress those who were previously identified as allies or collaborators. The possession of this data by the Taliban poses significant risks to the safety and security of individuals who were associated with the U.S. or Afghan government.
- Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS-K, and the Haqqani Network have established safe havens and training camps in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan. This means they have secured areas where they can operate freely and conduct training for their members. The Taliban's control of Afghanistan provides these groups with a conducive environment to plan and launch attacks. The presence of these safe havens and training camps poses a significant security threat due to the potential for increased terrorist activities.
- Adams accuses the U.S. of misleading the public about the true status of terrorist leaders like Hamza bin Laden, potentially to manipulate perceptions of the threat level. This deception could involve downplaying the influence or activities of these individuals to shape a particular narrative. By shielding the true extent of these figures' involvement, the U.S. may be obscuring the full scope of the terrorist threat. This behavior could hinder efforts to combat terrorism effectively by not providing accurate information to the public and relevant authorities.
Counterarguments
- The extent to which terrorists exploit the U.S. southern border may be overstated, as there are rigorous security measures in place, and the majority of illegal crossings are for economic reasons, not terrorism.
- While terrorist groups may attempt to forge alliances, ideological and strategic differences often make these alliances unstable and short-lived.
- U.S. aid money is subject to oversight and auditing, and while some diversion of funds may occur, it is not necessarily indicative of a systemic issue or intentional U.S. policy.
- The U.S. legal system provides due process to all individuals within its jurisdiction, and harboring terrorists would be against both domestic law and international commitments.
- The situation in Afghanistan is complex, and while the Taliban's takeover has led to persecution, the U.S. has engaged in extensive efforts to evacuate allies and continues to provide humanitarian aid.
- The presence of terrorist groups in Afghanistan is concerning, but it is a multifaceted issue that involves regional dynamics and international efforts, not solely U.S. policy.
- Accusations of the U.S. misleading the public on terrorist threats may not consider classified intelligence that cannot be publicly disclosed for security reasons.
- U.S. foreign policy often involves balancing a range of interests, including security, diplomacy, and domestic concerns, which can lead to difficult trade-offs rather than a simple prioritization of politics over security.
Get access to the context and additional materials
Terrorist threats and movements
Discussions reveal concerning growth in terrorist operations and highlight terrorists' increasingly sophisticated use of technology and international networks for coordination.
Terrorists crossing the U.S. southern border are utilizing technology and smuggling routes to infiltrate the country
There is an emerging concern about terrorists leveraging modern technology and established smuggling routes to infiltrate the U.S. South American countries' permissive policies are being exploited, and loopholes in U.S. immigration—such as humanitarian clauses—provide opportunities for entry.
Terrorists are leveraging TikTok and other social media platforms to coordinate their movements and access aid along smuggling routes
Terrorists are using social media platforms like TikTok to organize their movements, gain aid along smuggling routes, and access practical information on navigating cities, obtaining visas, and finding flights to South America. Once in South America, terrorists use these platforms for advice on continued travel and obtaining aid from NGOs for assistance like medical help.
Terrorist organizations are forging new alliances and expanding their operational reach
Sarah Adams stresses that previously rival terrorist organizations are now banding together, creating an enhanced unified threat. Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban are sharing resources and running training programs to strengthen their global operations.
Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban are aligning their goals and resources, posing a greater unified threat
Groups like Al-Qaeda are transforming operations, aligning with the Taliban and supporting organizations such as ISIS and Hamas. By rebranding themselves as political entities, they seek legitimacy while intensifying connections with supportive national governments. Al-Qaeda's restructuring efforts are following a model set by the Taliban, with commanders frequently traveling between regions to fortify alliances.
Terrorist groups are coordinating training, funding, and logistics to strengthen their position and carry out attacks
Intelligence indicates new trainees are deployed to Iraq and Syria, and groups like Al-Qaeda are freely supplying ISIS with weapons in Afghanistan. Hamas attackers have undergone training in Al-Qaeda camps, showi ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
Terrorist threats and movements
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Terrorists are using modern technology like social media platforms to coordinate their movements and access aid along smuggling routes. They exploit established smuggling routes and take advantage of loopholes in immigration policies to infiltrate countries. By leveraging technology and networks, terrorists can navigate cities, obtain visas, and find transportation to their destinations. This method allows them to access practical information and assistance while evading detection and border controls.
- Terrorist organizations forming new alliances involves groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban coming together to share resources, training programs, and strategic goals. This collaboration enhances their operational reach and creates a more unified threat on a global scale. By aligning their objectives and pooling their resources, these groups aim to strengthen their positions and carry out coordinated attacks. The alliances also involve a shift towards presenting themselves as political entities to gain legitimacy and support from national governments.
- Terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda are providing training and weapons to other organizations such as ISIS. There is evidence of coordination in training activities, with new recruits being sent to conflict zones like Iraq and Syria. This collaboration extends to logistical support, indicating a strategic alignment among traditionally distinct groups. The capture of key operatives suggests a sharing of resources and a concerted effort to strengthen their collective position.
- The involvement of children of notorious ter ...
Counterarguments
- The assertion that terrorists are using technology and smuggling routes to infiltrate the U.S. through the southern border may be overstated or lack comprehensive evidence, as the majority of illegal border crossings are motivated by economic opportunity rather than terrorism.
- The idea that South American countries' permissive policies are being exploited by terrorists could be challenged by emphasizing the humanitarian need to protect refugees and asylum seekers, which is the basis for such policies.
- The claim that terrorists are using social media platforms like TikTok for coordination might be countered by highlighting the efforts of these platforms to monitor and remove extremist content and the challenges terrorists would face in using widely surveilled public networks for covert operations.
- The notion of terrorist organizations forming alliances could be nuanced by considering the complex and often competitive relationships between these groups, which may prevent long-term strategic alliances.
- The alignment of goals and resources among groups like Al-Qaeda, ISIS, Hamas, and the Taliban could be questioned based on their differing ideologies and historical conflicts, suggesting that any cooperation may be temporary or opportunistic rather than a unified threat.
- The role of the children of notorious terrorists in leadership positions might be seen as an oversimplification, ignoring the diverse factors that c ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
U.S. government funding and support of terrorist organizations
The U.S. government’s dealings and financial activities relating to Afghanistan have raised concerns about the indirect support of terrorist organizations through various funding mechanisms.
The U.S. is directly and indirectly financing terrorist entities through multiple mechanisms
Sarah Adams highlights how U.S. funds intended to support the fight against terrorism may actually end up financing those same groups.
The U.S. is providing Taliban-controlled Afghanistan with hundreds of millions in weekly aid, much of which is siphoned off to fund the Taliban's operations and allies
The United States sends planes with $43 million to $87 million weekly to Afghanistan. However, 70% of this money is reportedly siphoned off by the Taliban for their own causes. Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that receive money must include a Taliban representative on their board, and the Taliban replaces staff in longstanding NGOs with their members to control the funds.
The first delivery of this money goes to Mullah Mohammed Hassan Akhund, the prime minister of the Taliban; the second to the deputy prime minister, Mullah Beradar; and the third to the GDI, run by Abdul-Hakwaseek, identified as a sanctioned designated terrorist.
The U.S. has frozen Afghan government assets, leading to the diversion of $3.5 billion to a Swiss bank account overseen by State Department and Taliban representatives
The U.S. government has split $7 billion in Afghan government reserves, with $3.5 billion earmarked for 9/11 victims and the other half into a Swiss bank account managed by a State Department officer, a Swiss diplomat, and two Afghans, one with a Taliban finance background.
The U.S. is delivering regular cash shipments to Taliban officials, as well as to al-Qaeda and affiliated terrorist leaders
Cash shipments are also made to the homes of significant terrorist figures, such as Sirajuddin Haqqani of the Haqqani Network and Saif al-Adel, described as the head of Al Qaeda's military commission. Additionally, the Taliban head Haibatullah Akhundzada receives various stipends, including U.S. support as well as funds from Iran, Russia, and India.
The U.S. government's actions are enabling and empowering terrorist organizations
Sarah Adams and other observers believe that certain actions by the U.S. are inadvertently ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
U.S. government funding and support of terrorist organizations
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The text discusses how the U.S. government is providing financial aid to Afghanistan, with significant amounts reportedly being diverted to the Taliban and other terrorist groups. This includes weekly cash shipments ranging from $43 million to $87 million, frozen Afghan government assets totaling $7 billion, and regular cash deliveries to Taliban officials and affiliated terrorist leaders. The U.S. has also split $7 billion in Afghan government reserves, with $3.5 billion earmarked for 9/11 victims and the other half into a Swiss bank account overseen by State Department and Taliban representatives.
- GDI: In the context provided, GDI stands for "Gul Agha Sherzai Development Foundation," an organization reportedly run by Abdul-Hakwaseek, identified as a sanctioned designated terrorist.
- NGOs: NGOs are Non-Governmental Organizations, which are typically independent entities that operate without government control and often focus on humanitarian, environmental, or social causes.
- Doha Deal: The Doha Deal is a reference to the U.S.-Taliban peace agreement signed in Doha, Qatar, in February 2020, outlining the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan in exchange for Taliban commitments on counterterrorism measures and peace negotiations with the Afghan government.
- Mullah Mohammed Hassan Akhund is the prime minister of the Taliban in Afghanistan, a key figure in the Taliban leadership. Sirajuddin Haqqani is a prominent leader of the Haqqani Network, a militant group closely linked to the Taliban and known for its attacks in Afghanistan. Both individuals have significant influence in the region and are involved in the political and militar ...
Counterarguments
- The U.S. aid to Afghanistan is intended for humanitarian purposes, to support the Afghan people facing economic hardship and to maintain basic services in the country.
- Oversight mechanisms are often in place to ensure that aid does not fall into the wrong hands, although they may not always be foolproof due to the complex nature of the situation on the ground.
- Freezing assets and diverting funds to a Swiss bank account could be part of an international strategy to ensure that the money is used for the benefit of the Afghan people and not misappropriated by the Taliban or other groups.
- The U.S. government has a history of engaging with unsavory entities when it serves a larger strategic purpose, such as stabilizing a region or securing American interests.
- Bringing individuals like Ahmed Abu Khatalla to the U.S. for trial is in line with the principles of justice and due process, which are core values of the American legal system. ...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
The situation in Afghanistan
The aftermath of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan has resulted in dire consequences for Afghan allies and the resurgence of terrorist groups.
The Taliban's takeover of Afghanistan has led to the abandonment and persecution of U.S. allies
Shawn Ryan and Sarah Adams reflect on the U.S. abandoning its Afghan allies "just at the drop of a dime," with Adams noting that people are still willing to partner with Americans despite past events. Following the U.S. withdrawal, tens of not thousands of Afghan allies have been killed, captured, or gone missing. The Taliban have detained Americans, such as Mark Freiks, and used U.S.-provided biometric databases to target former Afghan security forces and government officials systematically. Over 10,000 allies have been killed, and about 70,000 Afghans are missing. A shocking 80,000 women and 15,000 children have been raped, and many victims are effectively prisoners in their own homes. The Taliban have seized properties and cut power to homes as retaliation, and with Chinese and Iranian help, they have made the biometric systems operational, giving them complete access to databases to target individuals systematically.
Tens of thousands of Afghan allies have been killed, captured, or gone missing since the U.S. withdrawal
The Taliban is leveraging U.S.-provided biometric data and databases to systematically target and oppress former Afghan security forces and government officials
Terrorist groups have entrenched themselves in Afghanistan, posing an escalating threat
Al-Qaeda and ISIS-K have a robust presence in Afghanistan, enjoying safe haven provided by the Taliban. The Taliban's influential Haqqani Network has allied with various terrorist organizations, enhancing their influence and the potential for orchestrated attacks. Adams indicates Al-Qaeda's growing power, with the terrorist organization establishing 30 training camps, including specific camps for suicide bombers. The group has recruited 100,000 new members and is focused on executing attacks discreetly in regions like Iraq and Syria.
Al-Qaeda and the Taliban have monopolized illegal mines and share the ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
The situation in Afghanistan
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- The text describes the dire consequences in Afghanistan post-U.S. withdrawal, including the killing, capturing, and disappearance of tens of thousands of Afghan allies. It also mentions the alarming rates of rape against women and children, along with the Taliban's use of biometric data to target individuals systematically. Additionally, it highlights the presence and activities of terrorist groups like Al-Qaeda and ISIS-K in Afghanistan, detailing their operational capabilities and alliances with the Taliban.
- The biometric databases mentioned in the text are systems that store unique physical characteristics of individuals, like fingerprints or iris scans, for identification purposes. The Taliban, with the help of Chinese and Iranian support, have made these databases operational, allowing them to access detailed information on individuals systematically. This access enables the Taliban to target former Afghan security forces and government officials more effectively. The utilization of these biometric systems poses a significant threat to the safety and security of individuals in Afghanistan.
- The conflict in Kashmir involves various militant groups like ...
Counterarguments
...
Related Shortform Content
Get access to the context and additional materials
U.S. government's lack of accountability and transparency
Sarah Adams and Shawn Ryan delve into the U.S. government's handling of the terrorism threat, suggesting that there is a significant lack of accountability and transparency in its actions and narratives.
The U.S. government is engaging in deception and obfuscation regarding the threat of terrorism
Adams claims there are misleading statements regarding the supposed deaths of terrorist figures such as Abu Muhammad al-Mazri and Hamza bin Laden. She emphasizes that Hamza bin Laden is allegedly still alive and active, despite official claims to the contrary, highlighting a deeper problem of the government not being truthful about the status and threats of significant terrorist leaders.
The U.S. is downplaying the roles and influence of key terrorist leaders, such as Hamza bin Laden, to maintain a false narrative
While there's no direct mention of the U.S. government downplaying the role of Hamza bin Laden, Adams does suggest political motivations for maintaining the narrative of his death. She accuses the government of lying about the resurgence of the Bin Ladens in Afghanistan and misattributing attacks in Iraq and Syria, sometimes blaming Iranian proxies for what are actually Al-Qaeda operations.
The U.S. is shielding terrorist operatives and supporters from justice, hampering counterterrorism efforts
Adams discusses how the Taliban provide shelter to al-Qaeda leaders in their homes due to their relationship with the U.S., implying these locations are less targeted by U.S. forces. She also criticizes the U.S. for ignoring and covering for the activities of the Bin Ladens, and for seeking funds for a new embassy in Tripoli despite the presence of Benghazi attackers in the city.
The U.S. government's policies and actions are driven by political considerations rather than national security priorities
Adams and Ryan suggest that the U.S. is prioritizing political interests and partisan loyalties over effective counterterrorism measures. Adams argues that U.S. policy is unlikely to change in ways that would improve the fight against terrorism, citing involvement in East Libya and attempts to dictate Israel's war as examples of misguided priorities.
The U.S. is prioritizing political expediency and partisan interests over holding terrorists ...
Here’s what you’ll find in our full summary
U.S. government's lack of accountability and transparency
Additional Materials
Clarifications
- Allegations suggest that the U.S. government may have made misleading statements about the deaths of terrorist figures like Abu Muhammad al-Mazri and Hamza bin Laden. These claims imply that there could be discrepancies between official reports and the actual status of these individuals, raising questions about transparency and accuracy in the government's communication regarding counterterrorism efforts.
- The accusations suggest that the U.S. government may have provided misleading information about the involvement of the Bin Laden family members in Afghanistan after the death of Osama bin Laden. Additionally, there are claims that the U.S. government might have incorrectly attributed certain attacks in Iraq and Syria to Iranian proxies instead of acknowledging the involvement of groups like Al-Qaeda. These allegations imply a lack of transparency and accuracy in how the U.S. government communicates about terrorist activities in these regions.
- The criticism of the U.S. seeking funds for a new embassy in Tripoli despite the presence of Benghazi attackers in the city stems from concerns about allocating resources to establish a diplomatic presence in an area where security threats, like those seen in the Benghazi attack, persist. This action raises questions about the prioritization of diplomatic initiatives over addressing security risks in the region. The Benghazi attack in 2012, which resulted in the death of U.S. personnel, including the ambassador, highlighted the dangers present in Libya, particularly in cities like Benghazi and Tripoli. The decision to allocate funds for a new embassy in Tripoli despite these security concerns may be seen as a controversial move given the history of violence and instability in the region.
- The lack of a budget for bounties on terrorists in Afghanistan means there is no allocated funding specifically for rewards offered for capturing or killing wanted terrorists. U.S. funding for families of dece ...
Counterarguments
- The U.S. government may argue that intelligence regarding terrorist threats and the status of terrorist leaders is often classified for national security reasons, and not all information can be disclosed to the public.
- The U.S. may contend that its counterterrorism strategies are complex and multifaceted, and what may appear as downplaying could be strategic misinformation aimed at disrupting terrorist networks.
- The U.S. might assert that it operates within a framework of international law and due process, which sometimes limits the extent to which it can pursue and prosecute alleged terrorists.
- Government officials could argue that political considerations are an inevitable part of democratic governance and that national security policies are subject to debate and compromise among various stakeholders.
- The U.S. Department of Defense or State Department might maintain that funding decisions, includi ...
Get access to the context and additional materials
Create Summaries for anything on the web
Download the Shortform Chrome extension for your browser
