Tag Archives: FBI

U.S. Intelligence Agencies Mock America in 9/11 Trial

By Kevin Ryan
June 14, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

Last year, it was discovered that the FBI had attempted to infiltrate the legal defense team of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. The defendant is charged, along with four others including Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the military trial was moved out for approximately one year to allow for an investigation into the FBI’s offense. Recently, Al-Jazeera reported that the trial has been moved out yet again because the Department of Justice team leading the investigation (of its own bureau) needs more time to complete its secret report. These delays highlight the absurdity of the case against these men and the contemptible abuse of justice that the military trial represents.

Apparently, it has been difficult for the Justice Department to explain why the FBI approached a member of defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s legal team to “create a relationship with him that he was forbidden from disclosing.” That explanation became more difficult when it was learned that another member of Bin al-Shibh’s defense team had been cooperating with the FBI since late 2013.

fbicia_300The FBI infiltration of the Bin Al-Shibh defense team is just the tip of this anti-justice iceberg, however. In February, it was revealed that a translator assigned to help defend the accused was a CIA operative. That’s one way to ensure that the official account of 9/11, created entirely through torture testimony and secret evidence provided by the CIA ad FBI, would not be contradicted by defendant testimony. More was needed, however, as previous disclosures showed that the CIA was controlling audio feeds from the courtroom, bugging the rooms where the accused met with their lawyers, and censoring the lawyers. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of confidential defense team emails were provided to the prosecutors.

The military trial of these men was never expected to bring justice. But the absurd actions taken by the CIA and FBI have made the whole thing seem ludicrous, mocking the U.S. justice system. Why would these measures be needed and tolerated if the defendants were actually involved in 9/11? The reasons include that:

  • The charges against the defendants were largely established based on torture testimony, the records of which were destroyed by the CIA. That was after the agency misled the 9/11 Commission about the existence of the records.
  • Bin al-Shibh and KSM were both originally identified by the first torture victim, Abu Zubaydah. However, the government now says that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda at all and therefore he could not have known what the government previously said he knew. In other words, the arrest and torture of Bin al-Shibh and KSM were initiated by way of a fictional account attributed to Zubaydah.
  • 9/11 Commission leader Lee Hamilton suddenly can’t recall anything about these torture victims or his use of their testimony (441 times) in the 9/11 Commission Report.
  • KSM’s behavior prior to 9/11 was reported to be very different from that of a Muslim. He enjoyed go-go dancers and drinking parties and was said to be dangerous to nothing but his own bank account. The playboy lifestyle of KSM was similar to that of alleged hijacker ringleader Mohamed Atta, who seemed to be protected by U.S. authorities and might have been an intelligence asset.
  • One of the defense team lawyers resigned from the Army in protest of what was happening. He accused the U.S. government of “stacking the deck against the defense” and conducting a “show trial.”

One reasonable explanation for why the CIA and FBI have gone to such great lengths to control this trial is that the agencies are trying to cover-up their own role in 9/11. Much has been learned that suggests the CIA and FBI were involved. For example:

Whatever the reason for the antics, the military trial of these men has become an absolute farce leading American society farther down a path of tyranny. It sets a precedent in which the CIA and FBI can be suspected of crimes against the nation and then charge others with those crimes using secret evidence. The accused can be held in seclusion for thirteen years until agents of the CIA and FBI insert themselves as defense team members, ensuring total control from start to end.

At the same time, the press never notices that such an obviously fake trial would not be needed if there were actually any legitimate evidence against the accused. All things considered, this trial is not only a travesty of justice, it makes a mockery of 9/11 and brings shame upon the American people.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Last year, it was discovered that the FBI had attempted to infiltrate the legal defense team of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. The defendant is charged, along with four others including Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the military trial was moved out for approximately one year to allow for an investigation into the FBI’s offense. Recently, Al-Jazeera reported that the trial has been moved out yet again because the Department of Justice team leading the investigation (of its own bureau) needs more time to complete its secret report. These delays highlight the absurdity of the case against these men and the contemptible abuse of justice that the military trial represents.

Apparently, it has been difficult for the Justice Department to explain why the FBI approached a member of defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s legal team to “create a relationship with him that he was forbidden from disclosing.” That explanation became more difficult when it was learned that another member of Bin al-Shibh’s defense team had been cooperating with the FBI since late 2013.

fbicia_300The FBI infiltration of the Bin Al-Shibh defense team is just the tip of this anti-justice iceberg, however. In February, it was revealed that a translator assigned to help defend the accused was a CIA operative. That’s one way to ensure that the official account of 9/11, created entirely through torture testimony and secret evidence provided by the CIA ad FBI, would not be contradicted by defendant testimony. More was needed, however, as previous disclosures showed that the CIA was controlling audio feeds from the courtroom, bugging the rooms where the accused met with their lawyers, and censoring the lawyers. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of confidential defense team emails were provided to the prosecutors.

The military trial of these men was never expected to bring justice. But the absurd actions taken by the CIA and FBI have made the whole thing seem ludicrous, mocking the U.S. justice system. Why would these measures be needed and tolerated if the defendants were actually involved in 9/11? The reasons include that:

  • The charges against the defendants were largely established based on torture testimony, the records of which were destroyed by the CIA. That was after the agency misled the 9/11 Commission about the existence of the records.
  • Bin al-Shibh and KSM were both originally identified by the first torture victim, Abu Zubaydah. However, the government now says that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda at all and therefore he could not have known what the government previously said he knew. In other words, the arrest and torture of Bin al-Shibh and KSM were initiated by way of a fictional account attributed to Zubaydah.
  • 9/11 Commission leader Lee Hamilton suddenly can’t recall anything about these torture victims or his use of their testimony (441 times) in the 9/11 Commission Report.
  • KSM’s behavior prior to 9/11 was reported to be very different from that of a Muslim. He enjoyed go-go dancers and drinking parties and was said to be dangerous to nothing but his own bank account. The playboy lifestyle of KSM was similar to that of alleged hijacker ringleader Mohamed Atta, who seemed to be protected by U.S. authorities and might have been an intelligence asset.
  • One of the defense team lawyers resigned from the Army in protest of what was happening. He accused the U.S. government of “stacking the deck against the defense” and conducting a “show trial.”

One reasonable explanation for why the CIA and FBI have gone to such great lengths to control this trial is that the agencies are trying to cover-up their own role in 9/11. Much has been learned that suggests the CIA and FBI were involved. For example:

Whatever the reason for the antics, the military trial of these men has become an absolute farce leading American society farther down a path of tyranny. It sets a precedent in which the CIA and FBI can be suspected of crimes against the nation and then charge others with those crimes using secret evidence. The accused can be held in seclusion for thirteen years until agents of the CIA and FBI insert themselves as defense team members, ensuring total control from start to end.

At the same time, the press never notices that such an obviously fake trial would not be needed if there were actually any legitimate evidence against the accused. All things considered, this trial is not only a travesty of justice, it makes a mockery of 9/11 and brings shame upon the American people.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Last year, it was discovered that the FBI had attempted to infiltrate the legal defense team of a Guantanamo Bay prisoner. The defendant is charged, along with four others including Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM), of conspiring to commit the 9/11 attacks. As a result, the military trial was moved out for approximately one year to allow for an investigation into the FBI’s offense. Recently, Al-Jazeera reported that the trial has been moved out yet again because the Department of Justice team leading the investigation (of its own bureau) needs more time to complete its secret report. These delays highlight the absurdity of the case against these men and the contemptible abuse of justice that the military trial represents.

Apparently, it has been difficult for the Justice Department to explain why the FBI approached a member of defendant Ramzi bin al-Shibh’s legal team to “create a relationship with him that he was forbidden from disclosing.” That explanation became more difficult when it was learned that another member of Bin al-Shibh’s defense team had been cooperating with the FBI since late 2013.

fbicia_300The FBI infiltration of the Bin Al-Shibh defense team is just the tip of this anti-justice iceberg, however. In February, it was revealed that a translator assigned to help defend the accused was a CIA operative. That’s one way to ensure that the official account of 9/11, created entirely through torture testimony and secret evidence provided by the CIA ad FBI, would not be contradicted by defendant testimony. More was needed, however, as previous disclosures showed that the CIA was controlling audio feeds from the courtroom, bugging the rooms where the accused met with their lawyers, and censoring the lawyers. Additionally, hundreds of thousands of confidential defense team emails were provided to the prosecutors.

The military trial of these men was never expected to bring justice. But the absurd actions taken by the CIA and FBI have made the whole thing seem ludicrous, mocking the U.S. justice system. Why would these measures be needed and tolerated if the defendants were actually involved in 9/11? The reasons include that:

  • The charges against the defendants were largely established based on torture testimony, the records of which were destroyed by the CIA. That was after the agency misled the 9/11 Commission about the existence of the records.
  • Bin al-Shibh and KSM were both originally identified by the first torture victim, Abu Zubaydah. However, the government now says that Zubaydah was never associated with al Qaeda at all and therefore he could not have known what the government previously said he knew. In other words, the arrest and torture of Bin al-Shibh and KSM were initiated by way of a fictional account attributed to Zubaydah.
  • 9/11 Commission leader Lee Hamilton suddenly can’t recall anything about these torture victims or his use of their testimony (441 times) in the 9/11 Commission Report.
  • KSM’s behavior prior to 9/11 was reported to be very different from that of a Muslim. He enjoyed go-go dancers and drinking parties and was said to be dangerous to nothing but his own bank account. The playboy lifestyle of KSM was similar to that of alleged hijacker ringleader Mohamed Atta, who seemed to be protected by U.S. authorities and might have been an intelligence asset.
  • One of the defense team lawyers resigned from the Army in protest of what was happening. He accused the U.S. government of “stacking the deck against the defense” and conducting a “show trial.”

One reasonable explanation for why the CIA and FBI have gone to such great lengths to control this trial is that the agencies are trying to cover-up their own role in 9/11. Much has been learned that suggests the CIA and FBI were involved. For example:

Whatever the reason for the antics, the military trial of these men has become an absolute farce leading American society farther down a path of tyranny. It sets a precedent in which the CIA and FBI can be suspected of crimes against the nation and then charge others with those crimes using secret evidence. The accused can be held in seclusion for thirteen years until agents of the CIA and FBI insert themselves as defense team members, ensuring total control from start to end.

At the same time, the press never notices that such an obviously fake trial would not be needed if there were actually any legitimate evidence against the accused. All things considered, this trial is not only a travesty of justice, it makes a mockery of 9/11 and brings shame upon the American people.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Boston police, FBI shoot to death alleged terror suspect

By Tom Hall
June 4, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

Usaama Rahim

A Boston police officer and an FBI agent shot and killed 26 year-old Usaama Rahim while he waited for a bus to take him to work Tuesday morning. Authorities claim that Rahim was under 24 hour surveillance for an “ISIS-inspired” terrorist threat against police officers, and “lunged” at officers with a knife.

The shooting raises many troubling questions, and inevitably more details will come out. What is certain, however, is that nothing about the official narrative can be taken at face value.

According to the official police story, the two officers approached Rahim as he was about to board a bus to his job at a CVS drug store at around 7 a.m. Tuesday morning for questioning related to the alleged plot. They did not have a warrant for his arrest. Rahim then allegedly pulled out a military knife with an 8-inch blade and “lunged” at the officers, prompting them to draw their weapons and shoot him three times, including twice in the torso, after he refused repeated orders to back down. Police later showed the media the knife that was allegedly brandished by Rahim.

The police narrative was flatly contradicted by Rahim’s brother, Ibrahim Rahim, an imam formerly of Boston who moved to Oakland six months ago to lead the Lighthouse Mosque. “He was confronted by three Boston Police officers and subsequently shot in the back three times,” Ibrahim wrote on Facebook. “He was on his cellphone with my dear father during the confrontation needing a witness. His last words to my father who heard the shots were: I can’t breathe!”

Newly-appointed Attorney General Loretta Lynch defended the incident to the media Wednesday, declaring that “wherever we see evidence of potential terrorist activity, we will take the appropriate law enforcement steps.”

Police also carried out raids throughout the day at several locations in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, including the apartment building where Rahim lived and a house in Everett, Rhode Island, belonging to one David Wright, who was arrested Tuesday night and arraigned Wednesday night on charges that he conspired with Rahim to destroy evidence of the alleged plot.

Officials who spoke to the media anonymously Wednesday claimed that Wright and Rahim were planning to behead a police officer sometime Tuesday or Wednesday. “We believe the intent was to behead a police officer,” one official told the Boston Globe. “We knew the plot had to be stopped. They were planning to take action Tuesday.” An anonymous law enforcement official claimed to CNN that Rahim had originally planned to behead Pamela Geller, the extreme right-winger who orchestrated an anti-Muslim provocation last month in Texas where two would-be gunmen were killed by police.

Police also searched a home in Warwick, Rhode Island, and asked neighbors about a man in his 20s named Nick, according to a neighbor who spoke with the Globe.

Police had placed Rahim and two associates under 24 hour surveillance because they were “believed to be radicalized by ISIS and other extremist influences,” according to an anonymous police source who spoke with CNN. The Tuesday incident was precipitated, according to police, by a “recent change” in Rahim’s behavior, including threatening social media posts. Police, however, had placed Rahim under surveillance “for at least a couple of years,” CNN’s source said. Police have not yet explained what, if anything, prompted their surveillance of Rahim in the first place.

The entire incident was captured by surveillance footage from a nearby business. Police have declined to publicly release the video, instead electing to show it to a small number of representatives from civil rights groups and local Muslim organizations. Darnell Williams, a representative of the Urban League, which operates as an adjunct of the Democratic Party, claimed that the video proves the police account and contradicts Ibrahim’s claims. Abdullah Faaruuq, a local imam who also saw the video was more circumspect: while he admitted that the video showed that Rahim was not shot in the back, he called the poor-quality footage “inconclusive,” and that it was not clear that Rahim was armed with a knife.

Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the Council of American-Islamic Relations, expressed skepticism about the official police narrative shortly after the incident. “We have a number of questions: Why exactly was he being followed? What was the probable cause for this particular stop? Were there any video cameras or body cameras of the incident? How do you reconcile the two versions of the story, the family version being that he was on his normal commute to work at a bus stop?”

There is ample reason to doubt the official police version of the shooting. In the first place, there is the fact that the police are going to great lengths to control the media narrative. The police have not yet released anything concrete about the details of the alleged terror plot or the circumstances of Tuesday’s shooting. The vast majority of interviews conducted so far with police officials have been on the condition of anonymity, a tactic that is frequently used by the government to disseminate false information without attribution. There is also the extraordinary secrecy surrounding the surveillance video, which has been kept under lock and key away from the eyes of the media despite claims that it completely verifies the police story.

Most significantly, however, are the obvious parallels between this incident and the FBI murder of Ibragim Todashev, an associate of Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev, in his Miami home in May 2013. The shooting was justified at the time by the claim that Todashev suddenly brandished a knife and lunged at the officers, who were questioning him in relation to the Boston Marathon bombing. It later emerged, however that Todashev was unarmed, and had been shot execution-style by the officers, who escaped prosecution.

Since 9/11, the high-profile “foiling” of terrorist plots, which later turn out to have been entirely fabricated or even instigated by police provocateurs, have served the function of whipping up a political atmosphere of fear and paranoia, in order to justify ongoing wars abroad under the fraudulent framework of the “war on terror.” Nor is this limited to the United States. Last September, unprecedented police raids on Australia involving 800 police officers in response to a similar alleged “ISIS-inspired” beheading plot quickly unraveled when the “terrorist sword” paraded in the media as the weapon to have been used in the attacks turned out to be made of plastic.

USA Freedom Act stalls in the Senate

By Thomas Gaist
May 25, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

The US Senate failed to pass the so-called USA Freedom Act Saturday, as a 57-42 vote fell three votes shy of the 60 needed to bring the measure to the Senate floor. Several other measures to replace or revise the expiring Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act also were blocked, marking a temporary setback for efforts to continue the bulk collection of telephone metadata.

Promoters of the USA Freedom Act, approved by the US House of Representatives in a 338-88 vote earlier this month, claim that the law would have ended bulk collection of telephone records and metadata carried out under Section 215, which empowers the NSA, FBI, and other government agencies to seize and spy on telephone records and other forms of private data, including bank and credit card statements.

In addition to providing a facade of “reform,” the Freedom Act was also to serve as the vehicle for renewal of other surveillance powers established by the Patriot Act that are currently set to expire on June 1. The Senate will reconvene May 31, with the prospect that failure to enact last-minute legislation would remove the legal authority for a sub-set of the NSA’s vast activities.

Leading congressional supporters and opponents of “surveillance reform” alike are united by their support for the maintenance of the massive surveillance programs, which they present as necessary instruments in defense of the American people against “terrorist” attack.

Democratic Senators Barbara Mikulski and Barbara Boxer issued dire warnings about the possibility that spy powers may lapse, saying that the failure of the Republican-led Senate to pass new surveillance legislation called into question the “ability to govern.”

“This is as serious as it gets,” Boxer said, saying that legislation to reauthorize and update the Patriot Act spy powers is necessary to “protect the country.”

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said failure to renew the Section 215 powers was creating a “high threat period” by hampering surveillance.

A second attempt to pass emergency legislation extending the spy powers is to proceed on May 31. The Obama administration announced last week that the NSA has begun “winding down” operations associated with Section 215 in anticipation that such efforts will fail. Both the NSA and the White House have refused to offer specifics about the surveillance programs they claim are being closed down.

Like the USA Freedom Act itself, the failure of Congress thus far to renew the Patriot Act powers is being hailed, falsely, in some quarters as a major victory for democracy and blow against the illegal mass spying.

Wired magazine enthused that expiration of Section 215 would represent an “end to bulk collection of telephone data,” and proclaimed that “the government’s bulk collection of phone records from US telecoms is on hold.”

The Guardian announced last week that the failure of Congress thus far to renew Section 215 represents a “wholesale rollback of a wide swath of post-9/11 domestic surveillance.”

“The tides are shifting,” a spokesperson for the American Civil Liberties Union said in response to the non-renewal of 215, praising the Senate for “taking a stand against simply rubber-stamping provisions of the Patriot Act that have been used to spy on Americans.”

A spokesman for Demand Progress hailed the vote as “a victory for democracy over totalitarianism” and for “open government over secret law.”

Republican Senator Rand Paul, who waged a much-publicized 10-hour filibuster Wednesday against renewal of Section 215, tweeted over the weekend that ongoing moves in Congress have the potential to “end illegal NSA spying once and for all.”

One barely knows where to begin in countering such absurdities. First of all, the provisions in the USA Freedom Act do not even address the bulk of the pseudo-legal framework that underpins the criminal spying operations.

Even if the Patriot Act were repealed completely, this would amount to little more than the purely formal curtailment of one section of the legislative and executive authorizations for mass surveillance programs that began long before the bill’s passage.

Solely on the basis of Executive Order 12333, a decree issued by the Reagan administration and updated during subsequent presidencies, US government spies are empowered to collect any and all data from foreign sources that they deem relevant for intelligence and national security purposes. In the age of global communications, when virtually all forms of data are stored simultaneously on servers located on multiple continents, such power to collect data overseas effectively empowers the NSA to collect all data worldwide.

In an admission that must raise doubts about the government’s claim that the mass spying is necessary to fight “terrorism,” the Justice Department’s Office of Inspector General issued a report on the use of Internet activity logs, one of the activities authorized under Section 215, and concluded that it was unable to “identify any major case developments that resulted from records obtained through Section 215 orders.”

Rather than targeting terrorists, the NSA and FBI are compiling ever-growing databases on the social, political and cultural affiliations of the American people, as part of systematic preparations for mass repression against the population. Washington’s security agencies are collecting virtually every type of data in existence, and analyzing and disseminating the latter throughout the state apparatus through the use of “fusion centers,” as well as direct wholesale transfers of bulk data from the NSA to the FBI and other police agencies.

Surveillance technologies are becoming increasingly integrated into covert and paramilitary operations by federal, state and local police agencies. Police agencies down to the local level now routinely deploy StingRays and other surveillance technologies to seize cell phone data in bulk from crowds and cell phone towers.

Just last week, new NSA documents leaked by Edward Snowden showed that the spy agency developed malicious hacking and surveillance software designed to download onto smartphones by piggybacking on apps sold by Google and Samsung. By deploying from leading corporate platforms, the NSA’s IRRITANT HORN program can potentially infect tens of millions of devices with spyware that gives the agency unfettered control over the devices and data stored in their memory.

Such is the behind-the-scenes reality of the “surveillance reform” touted by promoters of the USA Freedom Act. As the stage-managed wrangling in Congress drags on, the actual spying programs continue to grow in complexity and scale.

The stubborn fact, laid bare for all to see through the heroic actions of Snowden and other whistleblowers, is that the US ruling elite is charging ahead as rapidly as possible with plans to expand and develop its mass surveillance programs, as part of an agenda to prepare repression against impending political upheavals.

While one cannot be certain of the precise outcome of the theatrics on Capitol Hill, there is no doubt that one or another legal basis will be found or invented to suit the needs of the state. The military-intelligence apparatus now operates as a law unto itself, doing whatever is necessary to expand and defend its own power and interests and those of its masters on Wall Street.

Garland, Texas, Shooting Event Revised – Shining a Spotlight on FBI’s Role Before Attack

By Shawn Helton
May 19, 2015
21st Century Wire

 

FBI TerrorismAccording to official reports over the last week, key details concerning the shooting outside the Curtis Culwell Center in Garland, Texas – have suddenly changed…

This past May 3rd, it was reported that two gunmen opened fire outside of a cartoon ‘art’ exhibition and “free speech contest” featuring images of the Prophet Muhammad in Garland, Texas.

Incredibly, government scribes have change their official story line this week, with investigators now saying that the two named suspects, Elton Simpson and Nadir Hamid Soofi were shot dead, but not by a single traffic officer as was originally stated by authorities, by by heavily armed SWAT Team officers.

This latest change radically differs from what the Garland Police Department had originally released shortly after the incident occurred.

The crime scene revision adds intrigue to the story surrounding the ‘unnamed officer’ initially believed to have shot both suspects, as he was confidently declared a “hero,” following the incident.

Why would the Garland Police declare such a dramatically different description of the events, after displaying so much adulation for the unnamed officer and his apparent actions?

Initially, Garland police spokesman Joe Harn had stated that the traffic officer who requested not to be identified, was at the event as part of a heavy security detail prior to the drawing contest, as described in this early NBC Dallas affiliate report:

“Harn added that off-duty officers work events at the Culwell Center every weekend, but that organizers paid the department around $10,000 for additional security that included agents with the ATF and FBI, security officers from the school district, off-duty police officers as well as SWAT officers and the bomb squad.”

We see a clearer picture emerging regarding Harn’s account of the heavy security presence and are offered a small window into the financial component related to the highly orchestrated exhibition as mentioned here at 21WIRE:

Officer Harn then notified the media — “The evacuation of all businesses in the area – just in case.” Notice how teams organized an evacuation, and not “shelter in place” – more evidence that points to a drill.”

‘Secrets in Garland?’ – What really happened during the apparent 15 second incident at the Curtis Culwell Center
in Garland, Texas. (Photo link trbimg.com)

Additionally, as we previously reported at 21WIRE shortly after the story first broke, the main suspect named in the incident, Elton Simpson, had been under the watchful eye of the FBI for nearly a decade and was in close contact with an undercover informant during that time. The following is an excerpt from that report, which also discloses that Simpson served 3 years probation after being arrested by the FBI in 2010 making a ‘false statement’ concerning an alleged attempt to join serving only 15 days in jail:

“Elton Simpson, was already under surveillance by the FBI and was even the subject of a terror investigation. More importantly, we can also confirm Simpson was being handled by an FBI informantCourt papers filed in Arizona name the FBI undercover informant as Mr. Daba Deng, a Kenyan and who, from 2007, was paid $132,000 by the FBI to “become friends with Mr. Simpson”, and who appears to have groomed Simpson through a local mosque, and helped to develop Simpson’s ideas about “jihad”.”

The same report outlined the relationship Nadir Hamid Soofi, the apparent ‘second’ shooter had with Simpson and likely with authorities:

“Elton Simpson’s roommate and that they both shared an apartment in Phoenix, Arizona, and also attended the same mosque – the Islamic Center of North Phoenix. Is it not safe to assume then, that FBI informant Deng also knew and was interacting with Soofi as well?”

In a Reuters clip on YouTube below, Sharon Soofi, the apparent mother of Nadir tearfully describes how her son has never been violent. Strangely, she didn’t appear to know Nadir’s roommate Elton, even calling him by a different name…


In 21WIRE’s initial report regarding the highly suspicious events in Garland, we once again see how media often ignites a politically charged narrative  for the masses:

“USA Today then inserted this familiar talking point to round-out the basic “Twitter” narrative: “Al-Qaeda and ISIS have shown a deft ability to use the Internet, particularly YouTube and social media, to spread their message and recruit followers around the globe.

According to Garland’s Mayor, Douglas Athas, and other media reports, a ‘SWAT Team’ was put into place BEFORE the event because of “safety concerns”.”

The Story in Garland Takes U-turn

The rearranging of information regarding the Garland’s “ISIS” shooting incident were outlined  by Garland Police Chief Mitch Bates on Monday, May 11th, stating that the FBI had not contacted his department in the hours before the shooting. Continuing, Bates denied having any prior warning about either of the suspected gunmen – a story which directly contradicts what FBI Director James B. Comey stated at a news conference last week.

‘The Watchful Eye’ – FBI director James B. Comey. (Photo link star.com)

In a May 8th report appearing in the NY Times, we see the extent FBI was actively monitoring Simpson prior to the apparent attack outside a small event in Garland:

“The F.B.I., which investigated Mr. Simpson from 2006 to 2014, reopened its investigation in March when he began to post messages on Twitter about the Islamic State.”

Additionally, the report continues by outlining the level at which the FBI was involved before the cartoon contest:

“Law enforcement officials had recognized that the cartoon contest, staged by anti-Muslim activists in what they called a defense of free speech, might be a target for violence. The F.B.I. set up a command center nearby in Dallas and issued a number of intelligence bulletins about the possibility of trouble, Mr. Comey said.”

“As early as April 23, Mr. Simpson had referred on Twitter to the planned cartoon contest. Mr. Comey declined to say whether agents had seen that post or what specifically had prompted the bureau to warn the Garland police 10 days later about Mr. Simpson.”

According to another excerpt from the NY Times  piece from May 11th, the FBI insists it issued a warning prior to the event:

“The F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, told reporters in Washington on Thursday that three hours before the attack, the F.B.I. sent a bulletin to the Garland police warning them that Mr. Simpson might show up at the event.”

If the FBI had followed Simpson for sometime, as outlined above, it seems likely they would have known exactly were the suspected gunmen was – why then, would Garland police state on the record they did not receive a warning?

Additionally, what are we to make of the FBI setting up a command center nearby Garland in Dallas?

Watch this Reuters news clip featuring Mitch Bates of the Garland police discussing the new developments in the Garland shooting case. Decide for yourself if the latest claims in the Garland case create more uncertainty about what happened…


The identities of the two suspects were not known to us until many hours after the shooting occurred.” – Garland Police Chief Mitch Bates

While the mainstream media has noted the shift in the story between the Garland police force and that of the FBI as a somewhat insignificant detail, the reality is, there is now a glaring change in the official narrative and the case should be examined more closely for its authenticity.


‘Weird Scene’ – This is an aerial view of the car said to have been used by both suspected gunmen in Garland. All of this damage we’re told  – happened in just a matter of seconds. (Photo link politicomag.com)

Staged Terror?

Shortly after the incident, many media outlets released a flurry of reports early on May 5th, stating that ISIS had claimed responsibility for the Garland attack via a radio broadcast on its Al Bayan radio stationa story which originated from SITE Intelligence Group.

As we’ve noted numerous times here at 21WIRE, the intelligence monitoring group SITE, has ties to both the CIA and Israeli intelligence. The group has also raised ethical concerns over the yearsand according to the group’s founder, Rita Katz – they’ve managed to the release terror related material linked to ISIS prior to the group itself.

The staged events in Copenhagen, Paris, and now Garland, repeat the same script, all with intelligence linked gunmen who are allegedly extremists.

And when you consider SITE’s involvement in the Garland story line, linked with that of anti-Islamic media personality Pamela Geller, who is the president of  the well-funded organization, the American Freedom Defense Initiative, the organizer of Garland’s Mohammed cartoon event, a polarizing  political narrative emerges.

Additionally, when reports suggested that ISIS had somehow orchestrated the apparent attack on “US soil,” in Garland, Texas without any forensic proof. The claims seemed much like the fake “ISIS in Mexico” story, where authorities and the media had to back away from the fuzzy claims in favor of a new meme – one stating that the suspected gunmen Simpson and Soofi were instead inspired by the terror group.

Here’s a recent interview on the Sunday Wire with host Patrick Henningsen along with whistleblower and legal analyst Kurt Haskell, listen as they dissect the highly orchestrated affair in Garland…


In an Associated Press article by Julie Watson entitled, “Doubts raised about Islamic State claim in Texas attack,” brought to light an important aspect of the story – the fact that there was no credible evidence ISIS was directly involved:

“It was unclear whether the group actually directed Sunday’s shooting in the Dallas suburb of Garland or if the two gunmen were inspired by the group to act on their own before they were shot and killed.

Such lone wolf attacks pose a daunting challenge to law enforcement, and Islamic State has a history of claiming responsibility for attacks in which it played no operational role, counterterrorism experts said.”

Continuing the report outlined possible outside links to the case, but had come up empty:

“Federal investigators were looking for links to overseas terror groups, but as of Tuesday afternoon had not disclosed any connection or evidence to back up the group’s claims.”


‘Confusion in Garland’ – An officer looks on at the apparent crime scene. (Photo link cyprus-mail.com)

Down the ISIS Rabbit Hole

On May 11th, the NY Times reported that Simpson tweeted to an account allegedly linked to Junaid Hussain a 20-year-old British hacker, a person with multiple online identities, who authorities also is believe is the cyber hacker TriCk, connected the group TeaMp0isoN. 

TeaMp0isoN, as it turns out, was a former blackhat hacker crew from 2008, which has now reemerged as a whitehat computer-security team in 2015 that specializes in penetration testing,” and other testing for security reasons.

In other words, they’re now a legal hacking group…

Hussain has been simultaneously linked to ISIS and mentioned as a key figure behind the apparent hack of CENTCOM’s Twitter account by a group calling themselves the “Cyber Caliphate.”

If we are to believe that Hussain is working with ISIS and TeaMp0isoN a now ‘whitehat’ group which has also been linked to working alongside Anonymous – wouldn’t that expose the CENTCOM hack as a sham, as it reveals the various connections between government entities and hacking groups now associated with ISIS?

For the record, the same NY Times article above mentions the dodgy claims of the events in Garland being linked to ISIS:

“Mr. Simpson posted, promoting a Twitter account believed to belong to Junaid Hussain, a young computer expert from Birmingham, England, who moved to Syria two years ago to join the Islamic State and has become one of the extremist group’s celebrity hackers.”

“This seemingly routine shout-out is an intriguing clue to the question of whether the gunmen, Mr. Simpson and Nadir Soofi, 34, both of Phoenix, were acting in concert with the Islamic State.”

Over the past week, the public was also told that Hussain was behind an apprent plot to attack London with his presumed wife, 45-year-old Sally Jones, an unemployed mother and former rocker via Twitter.

The very same week, the Daily Mail released a report outlining a recent recruitment campaign by British security services:

“MI5 is launching an ambitious campaign to recruit intelligence officers to convince the thousands of Jihadi extremists it is monitoring to spy for them.

A staggering 700 Britons are thought to be fighting alongside ISIS extremists in Iraq and Syria while an estimated 300 have already returned to the UK.

It will be the responsibility of operational intelligence officers – known as ‘handlers’ – to convince them into providing vital information to the security services instead.

Successful candidates will receive £41,900 salary plus benefits if they pass a nine-step qualification process which starts with an online ‘pre-screening’ and ends with an eight-week ‘foundation agent-handling course’.”

The MI5’s recruit program seemingly goes hand in hand with the rise new terror plots.

The symbiotic relationship between British security services, the FBI and terror schemes unfortunately – is nothing new…

FBI spy planes used in police-military operation against Baltimore protests

By Thomas Gaist
May 7, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

Police and National Guard troops in Baltimore last weekend

The Federal Bureau of Investigation arranged for at least two surveillance aircraft to patrol over Baltimore during recent mass demonstrations against the police killing of Freddie Gray, according to watchdog reports cited by the Washington Post.

Two small planes flew carefully planned routes over crowds assembled in West Baltimore during the mass demonstrations against the police murder, according to flight records from a third party called Flightradar 24, cited by the Post .

An unnamed source said the planes were equipped with infrared technology designed to track the movements of individual human beings on the ground. The Baltimore Police Department deferred all inquiries on the matter to the FBI, which has refused to comment.

Thus far, the US government has rejected demands by the ACLU and other civil liberties groups for an explanation of the domestic spying operation. The extended aerial surveillance operation only came to light as a result of personal investigations by citizens who noticed unusual airplane activity overhead.

It remains unclear precisely what other forms of technology outside of infrared surveillance were onboard the aircraft. One could assume, however, that the monitoring of crowd movements was used to help coordinate the military response against protesters, much like satellite, drone and other airborne technologies do for battlefield operations in Afghanistan or Iraq. Known technologies used by the government include mass cell phone data capture, high-resolution photography and facial recognition.

An unnamed US official who spoke with the Post confirmed the use of federal “surveillance assets” in support of the military-police mobilization in Baltimore. The FBI deployed the planes to bolster the surveillance assets deployed by the city’s own police agencies, the Post source said.

Government aviation watchdogs had previously tracked one of the planes used in the operation while it was making unexplained patrols around Langley, Virginia, the headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency.

The revelations have highlighted the increasing deployment of militarized spying technologies and urban warfare techniques, honed by US military forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, against the American people.

Private spying firms with ties to the US government, such as Persistent Surveillance Systems, have developed airborne surveillance technologies on behalf of the government that are capable of recording huge areas, up to 25-square-miles of urban environment at a time. Persistent CEO Ross McNutt noted that standard scale aerial surveillance technology used by the government records high-resolution footage of urban environments simultaneously across five city blocks, at a minimum.

In response to the eruption of social outrage after the April 20 funeral of police murder victim Freddie Gray, the state’s Republican governor declared a “state of emergency” and deployed thousands of National Guard troops and militarized police units. The city’s Democratic mayor also imposed a 10 pm-5 a.m. curfew.

Humvees, armored vehicles, helicopters and fixed wing aircraft were put into operation by state and federal security forces as part of a coordinated plan to suppress the demonstrations. Gatherings of discontented, unarmed civilians were subjected to a barrage of “non-lethal” weaponry and hundreds were arrested.

The crackdown in Baltimore proceeded in line with doctrines drawn up by the US Defense Department in its “Graduated Defense Matrix,” which lays out tactics for the military suppression of large-scale demonstrations.

The operation in Baltimore was a further test of martial law-style operations. Previous exercises took place in connection with the lockdown in Boston in 2103 and last year’s suppression of protests against the police killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. Ferguson is a small suburb of St. Louis, but Baltimore is a city of 622,000, located just 40 miles from Washington, DC.

During the Baltimore protests various career police officers boasted on CNN that federal and state law enforcement agencies had “intelligence assets” among the crowds in Baltimore. The police also said they were monitoring social media to track protests.

The military operation in Baltimore is the latest indication of the advanced preparations for military rule in America. Politically isolated, incapable of and opposed to any measures to ameliorate the conditions of grinding poverty and immense social inequality in America, the ruling class looks upon the masses of workers and youth with hatred and fear. It has recently been revealed that paramilitary forces referred to protesters in Ferguson last year as “enemy forces.”

The operation in Baltimore is part of an expanding program of “persistent surveillance.” According to the ACLU, new technologies, using sophisticated high-tech version of radar that is “akin to a camera” to track movements in detail across an immense territory, have been deployed or are in development,

Massive US army blimps were launched over Maryland last year as part of the JLENS (Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated Netted Sensor System) program. The blimps, priced at over $1 billion, can gather high resolution imagery from all directions at a range of over 300 miles, and this data can then be synced with military’s targeting systems, giving the two specialized aircraft the capacity to identify targets and direct precision strikes across territories as large as Texas.

The blimps can identify and track hundreds of vehicles at the same time, and recent upgrades have enabled them to spot targets at night and “paint” targets with the laser designators used to guide “smart bombs” onto their targets.

The Pentagon’s Persistent Ground Surveillance aircraft has hovered over Afghanistan’s capital of Kabul for years as the US neocolonial occupation force sought to “pacify” the country. “If you put a camera in a sky over an area where you expect a lot of unrest, the area will calm down,” a former US Air Force officer explained in comments to the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC).

Even though the tracking technology is being used against a huge portion of the most densely populated area in the United States, the Obama administration claims it poses no threat to privacy protections and democratic rights established in US and international law. “JLENS does not operate under privacy rules,” a representative from the company stated bluntly. The company and US government maintain that because the blimps do not intercept communications content, they do not pose any legal problems.

As the Washington Post acknowledged this week, such technologies frequently track “the movements of people under no suspicion of criminal activity.”

Facing an increasing restive and angry working class—as demonstrated in the protests sparked by police killings, poverty and inequality in Baltimore and around the country—the ruling elite is increasingly employing military methods to “pacify” workers and youth in the US.

Garland Shooting: Gladio – Texas-Style

Garland Shooting Involved Troupe of Practiced War Propagandists and Patsies Long on the FBI’s Watch List

By Tony Cartalucci
May 5, 2015
Land Destroyer

 

pamela-geller-afdi-in-garland-texas-1ABC News confirms that one of the suspects of the Garland Texas shooting incident, featuring professional war propagandists of the so-called “American Freedom Defense Intitiative” (AFDI), has been under FBI surveillance and investigation since at least as early as 2007.

Their report, “Garland Shooting Suspect Elton Simpson’s Father: ‘My Son Made a Bad Choice’,” states:

Followers of ISIS had been sending messages about the event in Texas for more than a week, calling for attacks. One referenced January’s Charlie Hebdo massacre in France and said it was time for “brothers” in the United States to do their part.

Simpson was well known to the FBI. Five years ago he was convicted for lying to federal agents about his plans to travel to Africa where investigators alleged he planned to join a terror group.

The investigation into Simpson reached back to July 2007, when he was recorded saying of fighting with Islamists, “I know we can do it, man. But you got to find the right people that… Gotta have connects.”

Despite the event allegedly increasing chatter amongst “Islamic State” (ISIS) groups online, and despite the suspect Elton Simpson being long under FBI surveillance and even sentenced to 3 years of probation resulting from a terror-related investigation, he was still able to conveniently conspire and carry out an attack on a highly provocative propaganda stunt in the state of Texas.

Garland Shooting Fits Pattern of Larger Staged Terror Campaign

As with all other staged provocations, including similar shootings in Paris, France, Copenhagen, Denmark, and Sydney, Australia, the suspects were well known to state security agencies for years, but allowed to conspire and carry out predictable, deadly, and politically highly convenient attacks. All of this echos the similar and long-since exposed staged provocations of the notorious “Operation Gladio,” carried out by NATO.

In Paris, France, the suspects in the so-called “Charlie Hebdo Shooting” were under the watch of security forces for years, were in and out of jail specifically for terrorism, were known to have left France to join terrorists fighting with Western-backing in Syria and return, only to be left “unwatched” for precisely the 6 months they would need to plan, assemble the weapons for, and prepare to execute the attack.

In Copenhagen, an assailant who attacked a synagogue killing 2, was also well known to security agencies. The Washington Post would report in their article, “Danish attacks echo France,” that:

The assailant in this weekend’s attacks was well known to Danish intelligence, Madsen said. In November 2013, Hussein stabbed a teenager in the thigh while aboard a commuter train, and according to Danish media, he had recently been released from prison following his conviction. 

But it was unclear whether this weekend’s assailant was under surveillance and, if so, how he managed to slip free long enough to plan an attack with an assault rifle.

Once again, suspects under surveillance and even arrested and imprisoned as violent offenders or as terrorists, managed to conveniently “slip free” of security agencies just in time to carry out attacks that just so happen to help the West continue its extraterritorial wars raging abroad, and continue building an abhorrent police state back at home.

Finally, in Australia, a suspect who held up a cafe in a deadly hostage crisis, was literally brought to Australia from Iran for the purpose of waging a propaganda war on Iran. When this failed to materialize,the “shape-shifting sheik” would morph to fit the villain necessary to match whatever narrative was currently being floated around the Western media. His final performance would help bolster the illusion that ISIS is an enemy of the West, rather than a creation and perpetuation of it, and to this day serving as the West’s extraterritorial mercenary forces in nations like Syria and Iraq.

A Modern Day Gladio 

NATO’s Operation Gladio, and its larger “stay behind” networks established after World War II across Europe and at the center of multiple grisly assassinations, mass shootings, and terrorist bombings designed to demonize the Soviet Union as well as criminalize and crush support for left-leaning political parties growing in popularity in Western Europe. It would be determined that NATO’s own covert militant groups were killing innocent Western Europeans in order to effect a “strategy of tension” used to instill fear, obedience, and control over Western populations.

A similar campaign of staged terror has been and is still being carried out not only across Europe but also now in the Americas – including in Canada. The purpose of this campaign is to divide society socially and politically, while helping to radicalize young people to join the ranks of US-British-Saudi armed and funded mercenary groups abroad in nations like Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, and Libya, and then return to commit staged provocations to inspire fear, hatred, and obedience at home.

It is a conflict of which both sides are controlled by the same criminal special interests. While it is clear that Western security forces maintain a large pool of potential terrorists they intentionally allow to roam free until needed, it may not be clear to many of what the backgrounds are of those who organized the event in Garland, Texas that allegedly provoked this most recent attack.

Neo-Con Propagandists Are Hiding Behind Freedom of Speech, Not Defending It

The supposed trigger for this provocation was a “draw Mohammad” contest organized by the American Freedom Defense Intitiative (AFDI), a performing Neo-Conservative propaganda troupe consisting of the Bush-era US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton, full-time propagandist Pamela Gellar and Robert Spencer, and Dutch politician Geert Wilders.

Their debut performance was in 2010, where they came out to protest the so-called “Ground Zero Mosque” supposedly to be built near the ruins of the destroyed World Trade Center in New York City. The mosque was never actually built, not because of the public backlash, but because the entire controversy was manufactured. The “imam” allegedly behind the mosque, was in fact a member of the Council of Foreign Relations, funded and backed by the very same corporate-funded think tanks that set out to protest against the planned “mosque.” In other words, the entire scandal was manufactured on both sides by the same special interests for the purpose of manipulating the public.

Since then, with little success, AFDI and its various affiliates in North America and Europe have attempted to stoke hatred not toward “radical Islam,” terrorists, or the US-backed regimes arming and funding them, but against all Muslims. Dutch politician Geert Wilders, for his part, while claiming to be defending “free speech” in Texas, has been busy trying to infringe on the rights of Muslims back in his home country.

He has even gone as far as calling for the complete censorship of the Qu’ran. The Telegraph in their article, “Ban Koran like Mein Kampf, says Dutch MP, would report:

The Koran should be banned as a “fascist book” alongside Mein Kampf because it urges Muslims to kill non-believers, says Dutch populist MP Geert Wilders.

Wilders and the rest of AFDI are not exercising free speech, but are in fact attempting to inspire fear, suspicion, hatred, and tangible violence against not just “terrorists,” but all 1 billion plus practitioners of the Islamic faith, many of whom are fighting and dying this very moment battling real terrorists, ironically armed, funded, and fully backed by the very Neo-Cons that have assembled AFDI.

Not only does AFDI hold freedom of speech in contempt and actively set out to destroy it for others, they are now hiding behind it to further strip the rights, peace, and stability away from people both in the West and abroad. The so-called “War on Terror” that AFDI’s rhetoric actively supports has served as the impetus to do everything from expanding warrantless surveillance and an ever expanding police state at home, to help garner support for wars of geopolitical conquest abroad.

Not About “Free Speech” 

With these facts in mind, it is clear that “free speech” is a canard used by both the “left” and “right” to distract from the real purpose of the Garland shooting, and other acts of provocation like it. It distracts from the fact that all of the perpetrators have been well-known to security agencies for years, even sentenced and/or imprisoned by various courts, as well as investigated and kept under surveillance. It distracts from the fact that the event at the center of the attacks was organized and carried out by those who themselves have actively sought to curtail the freedoms of others, not to mention foster wars that have ended or otherwise destroyed the lives of millions. It distracts from the fact that the very Neo-Cons telling the world to fear “Islam” represent the same special interests arming and funding literal Al Qaeda and ISIS terrorists across North Africa, the Middle East, and even Central and East Asia.

The AFDI represents one insidious arm of a larger criminal conspiracy that has verifiably helped end the lives of tens of thousands in Syria, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, and Yemen since 2011. It also represents the same special interests that lied to the world to justify invading Iraq in 2003, ending the lives of some 1 million people and leaving the country, to this very day, in constant deadly chaos.

The Garland shooting is not about freedom of speech, but rather about criminal special interests playing both sides of a manufactured strategy of  tension to achieve further bloodshed, death, and conquest abroad, while inviting fear, division, and a growing police state stripping us all of our rights here at home.

Neither the AFDI nor the patsies involved in the shooting deserve the public’s sympathy or defense. Rather, they both demand the scrutiny and vigilance required to break the rhetorical back of this conspiracy, and strip away the support it receives from both sides of a mass-manipulated public.

Sentencing phase of Boston Marathon bombing trial underway

By Tom Hall
May 2, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

The sentencing phase of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s trial over his role in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing is currently underway, with the defense calling witnesses beginning this past Monday. The chief issue in dispute is whether or not Tsarnaev will be spared the death penalty after he was found guilty in April of 30 counts related to the attack, 17 of which carry potential death sentences.

Prosecutors spent only three days out of more than three weeks of testimony making their case for the death penalty, which mainly consisted of testimony from victims and their family members.

During their opening remarks, lead prosecutor Nadine Pellegrini displayed a provocative, hitherto unreleased photograph of Tsarnaev thrusting his middle finger at a surveillance camera in his jail cell the day of his arraignment, three months after the bombing, in an attempt to paint Tsarnaev as “unconcerned, unrepentant and unchanged.”

This was revealed as a simple scare tactic on cross-examination, however, when the defense team showed the full video recording of the incident, indicating that it was fairly typical spontaneous juvenile behavior.

Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys are mainly presenting a potted family drama at the center of their defense, attempting to portray him as an innocent, otherwise normal teenager caught up in a toxic family environment stoked with psychological trauma and religious fanaticism. They are arguing that the young Tsarnaev brother under the spell of his older, more aggressive brother Tamerlan.

For example, in their opening arguments delivered on Monday, they accused Tsarnaev’s mother of being a “destructive force in the lives of everyone around her” who was “desperate for praise and validation,” while arguing that she was the ultimate source of his brother Tamerlan’s turn towards Islamic fundamentalism.

The defense’s witnesses are thus far comprised primarily of Dzhokhar’s childhood friends, classmates and teachers, all of whom have testified to his character as “quiet,” “loyal,” and a good friend and student. Witnesses have also attested to Tamerlan’s “aggressiveness” and domineering relationship with his younger brother.

At no point thus far in the proceedings has the defense raised the really substantive issues of the case, namely, the implicit or explicit implication of the federal government in the Boston bombing. As revealed last year by court filings by Dzhokhar’s defense attorneys, the FBI had attempted to recruit Tamerlan Tsarnaev as an informant.

There are strong indications that US intelligence was attempting to use Tamerlan to further its anti-Russian operations among Chechnyan insurgents. Tamerlan was also separately investigated by the FBI in 2011 for his Islamist fundamentalist sympathies and placed on at least two separate terrorist watch lists.

Nevertheless, Tamerlan was allowed to travel to Dagestan for six months in 2012 in an attempt to link up with Chechnyan rebels, and to return to the United States unmolested, even though the US government had been warned in a detailed letter by Russian intelligence of his Islamic fundamentalist views. While there, Tamerlan repeatedly expressed interest to a cousin in joining Islamic fundamentalist fighters in Syria, where they are acting as US proxy forces in a war to topple president Bashar Al-Assad. The militias in Syria include many veteran Chechen fighters.

There are also connections between the American intelligence community and the brothers’ uncle, Ruslan Tsarni. In the 1990s, Tsarni headed the Congress of Chechen International Organizations, which was registered at the home of Graham Fuller, the former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council at the CIA under President Reagan, and who was forced to resign because of his involvement in the Iran-Contra scandal. Tsarni was also once married to Fuller’s daughter.

Then there is the murder of Ibragim Todashev, a key witness and friend of Tamerlan, by the FBI after being detained for four hours in his Florida apartment. Several different, mutually contradictory media reports to the effect that Todashev was killed after he suddenly attacked the officers were exploded when it was revealed that Todashev was unarmed and had been shot three times in the back and once in the head. Even though the official autopsy completely contradicted the officer’s story, and despite the fact that the FBI agent in charge had a history of violence during his brief stint as an Oakland cop, no charges were ever filed.

Finally, there is the lockdown of the city of Boston carried out after the bombing. As the World Socialist Web Site explained at the time, the police-military occupation of a major metropolitan area, in the course of which military vehicles and helicopters patrolled the city while SWAT teams conducted warrantless house-to-house searches, was a “dress rehearsal for mass repression and the imposition of military rule.” This analysis has been completely confirmed in the past nine months alone, which have seen the deployment of paramilitary forces against protesters on two separate occasions, in Ferguson, Missouri last fall and in Baltimore, Maryland this past week.

If these burning questions are not raised in the course of the sentencing phase, the only really substantial portion of the trial given the defense’s admission of Dzhokhar’s involvement, it is precisely because of their politically explosive character. This is in spite of the fact that limits imposed by the judge on the defense’s ability to probe Tamerlan’s planning and execution of the attack, which would obviously raise serious questions about government complicity, no longer apply during the sentencing phase.

There is broad opposition to executing Tsarnaev in Massachusetts. According to a poll commissioned by the Boston Globe, only 19 percent of the state’s population favors the death penalty in Tsarnaev’s case, with 63 percent favoring life in prison. Even shortly after the bombing itself, a similar Globe poll only found 33 percent of those who responded favoring the death penalty.

Six Minneapolis Somali-Americans arrested in FBI terror “sting”

By Bill Van Auken
April 23, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

TERRORISTSMINNESOTAThe Minnesota US Attorney’s Office Monday announced the arrest of three young Somali-Americans in connection with an alleged plan to travel to Syria and join the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS).

The announcement came with the usual assurance that the alleged terrorists had posed “no threat to the public,” and the outline of the case that was presented made it clear that once again the FBI had used a confidential informant to organize a “sting” operation.

The defendants, three of them age 19 and the other three between 20 and 21, were all charged with conspiracy and attempt to “provide material support to a designated foreign terrorist organization.”

Federal authorities acknowledged that there is no evidence whatsoever that the young men who are charged had any plans to carry out terrorist acts within the United States.

The criminal complaint against them specifies their crime as “attempting to travel to Syria in order to involve themselves in the fighting that has consumed Syria for more than three years.” It further explains: “A variety of armed groups are operating in Syria. Those armed groups include many terrorist organizations, among which is [ISIS].”

This argument reads like an indictment not merely of the six Somali-American youth, but of the US government itself. After all, “the fighting that has consumed Syria” has been supported directly by the US and its regional allies, which have funneled money and weapons to the so-called rebels, who, as the federal prosecutor acknowledges, “include many terrorist organizations.”

On this basis, it would be far more fitting to indict President Barack Obama along with leading figures in the CIA and Pentagon for providing “material support” to these elements, than the six hapless youth who were ensnared by the FBI.

The six were arrested Sunday. Two of them—Mohamed Abdihamid Farah and Abdirahman Yasin Daud—were picked up in San Diego, where they had been lured by the FBI and their “confidential human source”—aka informant—with a phony scheme to supply them with fake passports and get them across the border to Mexico and from there to the Middle East.

The other four—Adnan Abihamid Farah, Hanad Mustafe Musse, Guled Ali Omar and Zacharia Yusuf Abdurahman—were seized at their homes in Minneapolis. While the informant had recorded them in his discussions about the fabricated travel plan, they had backed out either for lack of money or because of qualms about making the trip.

The criminal complaint, while claiming that they had been in touch with one Minneapolis man who managed to leave the US and reach Syria last year, acknowledges that earlier attempts by the youth to travel to Syria—made when at least some of them were in high school—had been thwarted, either by the authorities, who refused to allow them to board planes, or, in one case, by one of the youth’s parents, who confiscated his passport.

It was the role of the FBI’s informant to overcome all such problems, making himself the ringleader in a plan to get out of the US.

As the complaint explains, the informant told the six that he had secured a “contact in California for the production of forged passports.” He asked them to give him passport photos and $100 down payments for the fake documents.

One of the youth asked for his picture back, and, in the end, only two agreed to make the trip to California. Even they moved to pull out of the scheme, just two days before their arrests, when one of them was unable to sell his vehicle, which he was counting on to pay for the trip.

At that point, the informant arranged a call to an FBI undercover agent posing as the passport forger in San Diego, who said he would buy the car and throw in the passports for free, convincing them to make the trip with the informant to San Diego, where they were promptly arrested

Minneapolis US Attorney Andrew Luger told a press conference Monday: “What this case shows is the person radicalizing your son, your brother, your friend may not be a stranger. It may be their best friend, right here in town.” He could have added that this “friend” might also be an informant working under the direction of the FBI.

Minnesota Public Radio (MPR) described the atmosphere as “tense” at the St. Paul, Minnesota, courthouse where four of the defendants were arraigned on Monday. Some 70 Somali-Americans, including relatives of the accused, packed the courtroom.

MPR quoted Abdihamid Yusuf, the father of Adnan and Mohamed Farah, as saying that his US-born sons had been “brainwashed” by the FBI’s undercover informant.

The Minneapolis case comes on the heels of the arrest earlier this month of a 20-year-old Kansas man who was charged with plotting a suicide bomb attack on the Fort Riley military base. The defendant, John T. Booker, was brought into a Kansas City court Tuesday in an orange jumpsuit and shackles, where he was charged with federal crimes, including attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction and attempting to provide material support to a terrorist group.

Booker, who reportedly suffers from mental illness, was entrapped by the FBI after he came to the government’s attention for postings on his Facebook page. These led to his being barred from the US Army after initially being recruited.

An FBI informant was used to pump Booker about his sympathy for ISIS. This informant then put him in touch with an individual he described as his “cousin,” supposedly a “high-ranking sheikh planning terrorist attacks in the United States.”

The two undercover FBI men than convinced Booker he should carry out a bombing, provided him with a list of explosive materials and subsequently assembled the dummy “bomb” themselves, showing the 20-year-old how he could supposedly detonate it.

Imam Omar Hazim of the Islamic Center of Topeka told the media that Booker suffered from bipolar disorder and had stopped taking his medication because “he didn’t like the way it made him feel and it was expensive.”

“I think the two FBI agents set him up,” he said.

These cases are part of a long pattern of the FBI manufacturing terrorist plots and entrapping individuals who on their own would have never carried out criminal actions.

These activities have become so ubiquitous and so blatant that even the Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday that “The wide use of informants or undercover agents in the arrests of suspected Islamic State supporters in the US is sparking criticism that authorities are luring people into crimes.”

The Journal cited a report by the Center for National Security at Fordham University’s School of Law that found that 60 percent of the cases against Americans charged with ISIS-related offenses involved undercover FBI informants.

“They’re playing on people’s frailties, especially the younger types with mental and emotional problems,” Wadie Said, a professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law, told the Journal. “Is the government trying to remove a danger or working to create the crime, break it up and then claim a victory against ISIS?”

The political interests underlying these FBI sting operations are clear. By fabricating terror cases, the US government seeks to provide a pretext for both endless war abroad and the steady buildup of a police state apparatus at home.

US admits FBI falsified evidence to obtain convictions

By Kate Randall
April 20, 2015
World Socialist Web Site

 

The US Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that over a more than two-decade period before 2000, nearly every FBI examiner gave flawed forensic hair testimony in almost all trials of criminal defendants reviewed so far, according to a report in the Washington Post.

The cases examined include those of 32 defendants sentenced to death, 14 of whom have been either executed or died in prison. The scandal raises the very real probability that innocent people have been sent to their deaths, and that many more wrongfully convicted are languishing on death rows across the US due to FBI analysts’ fraudulent testimony.

Testimony involving pattern-based forensic techniques—such as hair, bite-mark, and tire track comparisons—has contributed to wrongful convictions in more than a quarter of the 329 defendants’ cases that have been exonerated in the US since 1989. In their pursuit of convictions prosecutors across the country have often relied on FBI analysts’ overstated testimony on hair samples, incorrectly citing them as definitive proof of a defendant’s guilt.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) and the Innocence Project are assisting the government in the nation’s largest post-conviction review of the FBI’s questioned forensic evidence. The groups determined that 26 of 28 examiners in the elite FBI Laboratory’s microscopic hair comparison unit overstated forensic matches in ways that favored prosecutors in more than 95 percent of the 268 trials reviewed so far.

The nation’s courts have allowed the bogus testimony, masquerading as definitive scientific evidence of defendants’ guilt, to railroad innocent people and consign them to decades in prison, life in prison, or death row and the execution chamber.

Federal authorities launched an investigation in 2012 after a Post examination found that flawed forensic hair matches might have led to the convictions of hundreds of potentially innocent people nationwide since at least the 1970s. Defendants in these cases were typically charged with murder, rape and other violent crimes.

The scandal involves about 2,500 cases in which FBI examiners gave testimony involving hair matches. Hair examination is a pattern-based forensic technique. It involves subjective examination of characteristics such as color, thickness and length and compares them to a known source.

There is no accepted scientific research on how often hair from different people may appear the same, and any hair “matches” must be confirmed by DNA analysis. However, the Post ’s 2012 review found that FBI experts systematically testified to the near-certainty of matches of hair found at crime scenes to the hair samples of defendants. The FBI gave flawed forensic testimony in 257 of the 268 trials examined so far.

In 2002, a decade before the Post review, the FBI reported that its own DNA testing revealed that examiners reported false hair matches more than 11 percent of the time.

In Washington, DC, the only jurisdiction where defenders and prosecutors have carried out an investigation into all convictions based on FBI hair testimony, five of seven defendants whose trials included flawed hair evidence have been exonerated since 2009 based on either DNA testing or court appeals. All of them served 20 to 30 years in prison for rape or murder.

In an interview with the Post, University of Virginia law professor Brandon L. Garrett said the results of the DC investigation reveal a “mass disaster” inside the criminal justice system. “The tools don’t exist to handle systematic errors in our criminal justice system,” he said.

Those exonerated since 2009 in DC include:

* Donald Eugene Gates was incarcerated for 28 years for the rape and murder of a Georgetown University student. He was ordered released in December 2009 by a DC Superior Court Judge after DNA evidence revealed that another man committed the crime. The prosecution relied heavily on the testimony of an FBI analyst, who falsely linked two hairs from an African-American mail to Gates.

* Kirk L. Odom was wrongfully imprisoned for more than 22 years for a 1981 rape and murder. He completed his prison term in 2003, but it was not until July 2012 that DNA evidence exonerated him of the crimes. A DC Superior Court order freed him from remaining on parole until 2047 and registering as a sex offender.

* Santae A. Tribble was convicted in the 1978 killing of a DC taxi driver. An FBI examiner testifying at Tribble’s trial said he had microscopically matched the defendant’s hair to one found in a stocking near the crime scene. In 2012, DNA tests on the same hair excluded him as the perpetrator, clearing the way for his exoneration.

Federal authorities are offering new DNA testing in those cases where FBI analysts gave flawed forensic testimony. However, in some 700 of the 2,500 cases identified by the FBI for review, police or prosecutors have not responded to requests for trial transcripts or other information. Biological evidence is also not always available, having been lost or destroyed in the years since trial.

Although defense attorneys argue that scientifically invalid testimony should be considered a violation of due process, only the states of California and Texas specifically allow appeals when experts recant their testimony or scientific advances undermine forensic evidence given at trial.

In a statement responding to the new scandal’s eruption, the FBI and Justice Department vowed that they are “committed to ensuring that affected defendants are notified of past errors and that justice is done in every instance” and that are “also committed to ensuring the accuracy of future hair analysis, as well as the application of all disciplines of forensic science.”

The scandal over fraudulent testimony, however, only reveals the corrupt and anti-democratic character of the US prison system as a whole. The United States locks behind bars a greater proportion of its population than any other country, topped off by the barbaric death penalty that is supported by the entire political establishment.

Whatever the hypocritical posturing of the Obama White House, it cannot bring back the years spent in prison by the wrongfully convicted or the lives of those likely executed for crimes they did not commit.

HEAD of the FBI’s Anthrax Investigation Says the Whole Thing Was a SHAM

By WashingtonsBlog
April 17, 2015
Washington’s Blog

 

Agent In Charge of Amerithrax Investigation Blows the Whistle

The FBI head of the agent in charge of the anthrax investigation – Richard Lambert – has just filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit calling the entire FBI investigation bullsh!t:

In the fall of 2001, following the 9/11 attacks, a series of anthrax mailings occurred which killed five Americans and sickened 17 others. Four anthrax-laden envelopes were recovered which were addressed to two news media outlets in New York City (the New York Post and Tom Brokaw at NBC) and two senators in Washington D.C. (Patrick Leahy and Tom Daschle). The anthrax letters addressed to New York were mailed on September 18, 2001, just seven days after the 9/11 attacks. The letters addressed to the senators were mailed 21 days later on October 9, 2001. A fifth mailing of anthrax is believed to have been directed to American Media, Inc. (AMI) in Boca Raton, Florida based upon the death of one AMI employee from anthrax poisoning and heavy spore contamination in the building.

Executive management at FBI Headquarters assigned responsibility for the anthrax investigation (code named “AMERITHRAX”) to the Washington Field Office (WFO), dubbing it the single most important case in the FBI at that time. In October 2002, in the wake of surging media criticism, White House impatience with a seeming lack of investigative progress by WFO, and a concerned Congress that was considering revoking the FBI’s charter to investigate terrorism cases, Defendant FBI Director Mueller reassigned Plaintiff from the FBI’s San Diego Field Office to the Inspection Division at FBI Headquarters and placed Plaintiff in charge of the AMERITHRAX case as an “Inspector.” While leading the investigation for the next four years, Plaintiff’s efforts to advance the case met with intransigence from WFO’s executive management, apathy and error from the FBI Laboratory, politically motivated communication embargos from FBI Headquarters, and yet another preceding and equally erroneous legal opinion from Defendant Kelley – all of which greatly obstructed and impeded the investigation.

On July 6, 2006, Plaintiff provided a whistleblower report of mismanagement to the FBI’s Deputy Director pursuant to Title 5, United States Code, Section 2303. Reports of mismanagement conveyed in writing and orally included: (a) WFO’s persistent understaffing of the AMERITHRAX investigation; (b) the threat of WFO’s Agent in charge to retaliate if Plaintiff disclosed the understaffing to FBI Headquarters; (c) WFO’s insistence on staffing the AMERITHRAX investigation principally with new Agents recently graduated from the FBI Academy resulting in an average investigative tenure of 18 months with 12 of 20 Agents assigned to the case having no prior investigative experience at all; (d) WFO’s eviction of the AMERITHRAX Task Force from the WFO building in downtown Washington and its relegation to Tysons Corner, Virginia to free up space for Attorney General Ashcroft’s new pornography squads; (e) FBI Director’s Mueller’s mandate to Plaintiff to “compartmentalize” the AMERITHRAX investigation by stove piping the flow of case information and walling off task force members from those aspects of the case not specifically assigned to them – a move intended to stem the tide of anonymous media leaks by government officials regarding details of the investigation. [Lambert complained about compartmentalizing and stovepiping of the investigation in a 2006 declaration.  See this, this and this]

This sequestration edict decimated morale and proved unnecessary in light of subsequent civil litigation which established that the media leaks were attributable to the United States Attorney for the District of the District of Columbia and to a Supervisory Special Agent in the FBI’s National Press Office, not to investigators on the AMERITHRAX Task Force; (f) WFO’s diversion and transfer of two Ph.D. Microbiologist Special Agents from their key roles in the investigation to fill billets for an 18 month Arabic language training program in Israel; (g) the FBI Laboratory’s deliberate concealment from the Task Force of its discovery of human DNA on the anthrax-laden envelope addressed to Senator Leahy and the Lab’s initial refusal to perform comparison testing; (h) the FBI Laboratory’s refusal to provide timely and adequate scientific analyses and forensic examinations in support of the investigation; (i) Defendant Kelley’s erroneous and subsequently quashed legal opinion that regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) precluded the Task Force’s collection of evidence in overseas venues; (j) the FBI’s fingering of Bruce Ivins as the anthrax mailer; and, (k) the FBI’s subsequent efforts to railroad the prosecution of Ivins in the face of daunting exculpatory evidence.

Following the announcement of its circumstantial case against Ivins, Defendants DOJ and FBI crafted an elaborate perception management campaign to bolster their assertion of Ivins’ guilt. These efforts included press conferences and highly selective evidentiary presentations which were replete with material omissions. Plaintiff further objected to the FBI’s ordering of Plaintiff not to speak with the staff of the CBS television news magazine 60 Minutes or investigative journalist David Willman, after both requested authorization to interview Plaintiff.

In April 2008, some of Plaintiff’s foregoing whistleblower reports were profiled on the CBS television show 60 Minutes. This 60 Minutes segment was critical of FBI executive management’s handling of the AMERITHRAX investigation, resulting in the agency’s embarrassment and the introduction of legislative bills calling for the establishment of congressional inquiries and special commissions to examine these issues – a level of scrutiny the FBI’s Ivins attribution could not withstand.

After leaving the AMERITHRAX investigation in 2006, Plaintiff continued to publicly opine that the quantum of circumstantial evidence against Bruce Ivins was not adequate to satisfy the proof-beyond-a-reasonable doubt threshold required to secure a criminal conviction in federal court. Plaintiff continued to advocate that while Bruce Ivins may have been the anthrax mailer, there is a wealth of exculpatory evidence to the contrary which the FBI continues to conceal from Congress and the American people.

Exonerating Evidence for Ivins

Agent Lambert won’t publicly disclose the exculpatory evidence against Ivins. As the New York Times reports:

[Lambert] declined to be specific, saying that most of the information was protected by the Privacy Act and was unlikely to become public unless Congress carried out its own inquiry.

But there is already plenty of exculpatory evidence which is already publicly available.

For example:

  • Handwriting analysis failed to link the anthrax letters to known Ivins writing samples
  • No textile fibers were found in Ivins’ office, residence or vehicles matching fibers found on the scotch tape used to seal the envelopes
  • No pens were found matching the ink used to address the envelopes
  • Samples of his hair failed to match hair follicles found inside the Princeton, N.J., mailbox used to mail the letters
  • No souvenirs of the crime, such as newspaper clippings, were found in his possession as commonly seen in serial murder cases
  • The FBI could not place Ivins at the crime scene with evidence, such as gas station or other receipts, at the time the letters were mailed in September and October 2001
  • Lab records show the number of late nights Ivins put in at the lab first spiked in August 2001, weeks before the 9/11 attacks

As noted above, the FBI didn’t want to test the DNA sample found on the anthrax letter to Senator Leahy.  In addition, McClatchy points out:

After locking in on Ivins in 2007, the bureau stopped searching for a match to a unique genetic bacterial strain scientists had found in the anthrax that was mailed to the Post and to NBC News anchor Tom Brokaw, although a senior bureau official had characterized it as the hottest clue to date.

Anthrax vaccine expert Meryl Nass. M.D., notes:

The FBI’s alleged motive is bogus. In 2001, Bioport’s anthrax vaccine could not be (legally) relicensed due to potency failures, and its impending demise provided room for Ivins’ newer anthrax vaccines to fill the gap. Ivins had nothing to do with developing Bioport’s vaccine, although in addition to his duties working on newer vaccines, he was charged with assisting Bioport to get through licensure.

***

The FBI report claims the anthrax letters envelopes were sold in Frederick, Md. Later it admits that millions of indistinguishable envelopes were made, with sales in Maryland and Virginia.

***

FBI emphasizes Ivins’ access to a photocopy machine, but fails to mention it was not the machine from which the notes that accompanied the spores were printed.

FBI Fudged the Science

16 government labs had access to the same strain of anthrax as used in the anthrax letters.

The FBI admitted that up to 400 people had access to flask of anthrax in Dr. Ivins’ lab.  In other words, even if the killer anthrax came from there, 399 other people might have done it.

However, the FBI’s claim that the killer anthrax came from Ivins’ flask has fallen apart. Specifically, both the National Academy of Science and the Government Accountability Office – both extremely prestigious, nonpartisan agencies – found that FBI’s methodology and procedures for purportedly linking the anthrax flask maintained by Dr. Ivins with the anthrax letters was sloppy, inconclusive and full of holes.  They found that the alleged link wasn’t very strong … and that there was no firm link.  Indeed, the National Academy of Sciences found that the anthrax mailed to Congressmen and the media could have come from a different source altogether than the flask maintained by Ivins.

After all, the entire Ft. Detrick facility – where Ivins worked – only dealt with liquid anthrax.  But the killer anthrax was a hard-to-make dry powder for of anthrax. advance.  Ft. Detrick doesn’t produce dry forms; but government labs in Utah (Dugway) and Ohio (Batelle) do.

The anthrax in the letters was also incredibly finely ground; and the FBI’s explanation doesn’t pass the smell test.

Moreover, the killer anthrax in the letters had a very high-tech  anti-static coating so that the spores “floated off the glass slide and was lost” when scientists tried to examine them.  Specifically, the killer anthrax was coated with polyglass and each anthrax spore given an electrostatic charge, so that they would repel other spores and “float”.   In other words, this was very advanced bio-weapons technology.

Top anthrax experts like Richard Spertzel say that Ivins didn’t do it. Spertzel also says that only 4 or 5 people in the entire country knew how to make anthrax of the “quality” used in the letters, that Spertzel was one of them, and it would have taken him a year with a full lab and a staff of helpers to do it. As such, the FBI’s claim that Ivins did it alone working a few nights is ludicrous.

Moreover, the killer anthrax contained silicon … but the anthrax in Ivins’ flask did not.  The FBI claimed the silicon present in the anthrax letters was absorbed from its surroundings … but Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories completely debunked that theory. In other words, silicon was intentionally added to the killer anthrax to make it more potent. And Ivins and Ft. Detrick didn’t have that capability; but other government labs did.

Similarly, Sandia National Lab found the presence of iron and tin in the killer anthrax … but NOT in Ivins’ flask of anthrax.

Sandia also found that there was a strain of bacteria in one of the anthrax letters not present in Ivins’ flask.

The Anthrax Frame Up

Ivins wasn’t the first person framed for the anthrax attacks …

Although the FBI now admits that the 2001 anthrax attacks were carried out by one or more U.S. government scientists, a senior FBI official says that the FBI was actually told to blame the Anthrax attacks on Al Qaeda by White House officials (remember what the anthrax letters looked like). Government officials also confirm that the white House tried to link the anthrax to Iraq as a justification for regime change in that country. And see this.

People don’t remember now, but the Anthrax attacks were as important a “justification” for the Iraq war as 9/11.   And the anthrax letters pushed a terrified Congress into approving the Patriot Act without even reading it.

And – between the Al Qaeda/Iraq angle and Ivins – the FBI was convinced that another U.S. government scientist, Steven Hatfill, did it.  The government had to pay Hatfill $4.6 million to settle his lawsuit for being falsely accused.

Ivins’ Convenient Death

It is convenient for the FBI that Ivins died.

The Wall Street Journal points out:

No autopsy was performed [on Ivins], and there was no suicide note.

Indeed, one of Ivins’ colleagues at Ft. Deitrich thinks he was murdered.

Whether murder or suicide, Ivins’ death was very convenient for the FBI, as dead men can’t easily defend themselves.