It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Did the CIA Renege on a 5 million Dollar Bounty?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 08:28 PM
When OBL was alive, One thing that blew my mind was the amount of cash the bounty offered. Despite a Grand Rapids man claiming the huge pile of cash, it went unpaid. Is the CIA at it again? Being a capitalist, I thought the cash for sure was what would bring Bin Laden to his 72 virgins. When I learned of how American citizen and Islamic xtremist Anwar al-Awlaki was taken down in a drone strike in 2011, the details were quite hazy and I wondered if someone had struck it rich or if the fact this was an American citizen would an even more intense debate ensue.

I just saw a CNN special report with Danish "007" double agent Norman Storm where Storm claims his intelligence was what led to the drone strike that killed al-Awlaki. There is no doubt this man is legit, and it would seem he had access to Al Qaeda in Yemen that every spymaster would dream of.

It his Storm's claim that the CIA observed a meeting he set up with a low level courier that was then arrested and interrogated into giving up the location of the Al Qaeda recruiter. Very shortly thereafter al-Awlaki met his demise and a Hellfire missile.
According to Storm, he was offered $5 million to locate the suspect.

He gets the call, and it is his Danish handler with some bad news. "It wasn't us Norman, sorry" was all that the Danish agent supposedly told him. Storm went as far as to tape his meeting with his CIA handler when they met to express his anger. The way the handler keeps trying to turn things around on him is textbook CI.

My question is this: Is this detrimental to future terrorist hunts? Will it give the CIA an even worse reputation? I realize no spy agency is known for being trustworthy but to be labeled as one that doesn't pay its bills is much worse imo.

This is my first thread and am not certain if it belongs here or in breaking news since my source is 6 months old. I could find nothing on this through the ATS search function.
I will update when some more recent articles are written.
edit on 9/20/2014 by georgezip because: Grammar and clarification of stance.

edit on 9/20/2014 by georgezip because: added source

edit on 9/20/2014 by georgezip because: (no reason given)

edit on 9/20/2014 by georgezip because: Kind format suggestion

edit on 9/20/2014 by georgezip because: Just want it better.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 09:52 PM
a reply to: georgezip

Here's a friendly tip for future threads.... Use paragraphs. The wall of text hurts my eyes.

Welcome to ATS

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:03 PM
Thank you for the welcome. I took your advice and I agree. a reply to: combatmaster

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 10:36 PM
Is this guy supposed to be more credible than the fellow from Grand Rapids? I saw that special too and Storm struck me as pretty egotistical and narcissistic.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:11 PM
One thing that I believe needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that Storm was an intelligence agent. Well, my point is that there is a difference between an intelligence asset that was recruited and an actual intelligence agent. I don't know how you would classify Storm, seeing as how he was with the terrorists before turning on them, and he apparently approached the Danish government and then in turn was working with the CIA. What I mean is that I wouldn't think actual intelligence agents could claim a bounty, although I could be wrong. Of course an asset recruited on the ground very well could receive such a reward, and it would all depend on how he was categorized and the details surrounding his case.

But with that said, since they told him it was not his intelligence that provided the information, that seems to indicate he could have received the money. So did they lie? Probably. I mean if you can lie and save millions of dollars, why not? I don't see what would stop them. Personally I don't feel that it will hurt future CIA plots to gain assets and information from assets, but if this type of thing starts becoming common knowledge, and they are screwing people out of the reward money, then of course it is more likely to have some sort of effect in the future. I don't really know however.

posted on Sep, 20 2014 @ 11:20 PM
I agree that someone should not be paid to do their job. If you ask Storm, he will tell you he is a modern day James Bond. However, he had been paid 250K to find a wife for al-Awlaki and he was told before he put the plan into action that 5 mil was his if he was able to locate him and he ended up dead.
I'm not big on paying for terrorists or anything, I am just concerned that in the future there may be a fugitive with an Osama type reward and a person who could help decides not to because the CIA has a track record of screwing over the payee every time. If you can find the special report that aired tonight see if you can listen to his CIA handler "handle" him...its a treat. Thanks for your response. a reply to: JiggyPotamus

new topics

top topics

log in