03-08-2013, 01:04 AM
The final chapter:
http://lookingglass.blog.co.uk/2013/08/0...-16285661/
Dear Readers: This is the final installment in the series, Boston: The Case Is Not Closed.'
I've written major pieces before concerning what seemed like critical matters, but in each case I've had an enormous reservoir of information, much of it reliable, from which to draw. I can tell you how the Kennedys were killed and by whom with some degree of assurance because I spent about twenty years obsessively pursuing the subject. If you are obsessed by anything for a long time, you will at a minimum have a really big bag of stuff.
Boston is still too new, too unsettled. In gathering material, I pulled from the web more than a hundred articles, video and audio tapes, opinion pieces, and news columns, from which I extracted 85 pages of notes. For the most part, this column is a collection and a synthesis. I do not know what happened, but there are troubling possibilities.
14. What Might Have Happened.
There's something wrong with the official account, and there are disturbing signs, the sort of unhappy signs an experienced researcher will spot when somebody is trying to fix-up a story.
Most disturbing is the background and intelligence connections of Ruslan Tsarni and his former father-in-law, especially when superimposed over FBI claims about Tamerlan and his 2012 visit to Russia. The FBI says that it didn't follow up on its interest in Tamerlan, that the Russians never told them what their suspicions were based on, and that he was off their radar as of 2013. I find that very hard to believe.
First, the FBI would never simply let it go if a source declined to explain what it meant, and the Russian intelligence services would never pass along a warning without the details. Never. Second, FBI practice is that persons of interest are not simply dropped but are surveilled ever after; that is because the Bureau has the ability to do so and the technology to support it. Third, there are times when the FBI will back off a suspect: when asked to do so by another U.S. intelligence agency.
It is also noteworthy that the FBI, of all governmental agencies requested, has refused to testify before a House committee which is investigating what happened. From the AP wire:
"WASHINGTON - The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday lambasted the Federal Bureau of Investigation for what he called attempts to "stonewall" congressional investigations of the events leading up to the Boston Marathon bombings...
""The FBI has refused to appear, and continues to refuse this committee's appropriate requests for information and documents crucial to our investigation into what happened in Boston," (Rep. Michael) McCaul said... "The information requested by this Committee belongs to the American people. It does not belong solely to the FBI, and I sincerely hope they do not intend to stonewall our inquiry into how this happened."
If Izvestia is right it claims there are documents which prove it Tamerlan attended a training seminar in the summer of 2012 run by a CIA front. If the CIA was making use of him it would not be unusual for it to ask another agency to give it room.
Tamerlan was a perfect target for intelligence recruitment. A Chechen native who spoke fluent Russian, an athlete, and a man with a grievance his exclusion from high-level competition for reasons he no doubt felt were unfair he fit the profile, as several former intelligence officers have observed.
What if the CIA or FBI, for that matter recruited Tamerlan, told him that they could solve his problems with INS and make it possible for him to qualify for the Olympics? All he had to do was help them with a little bit of spying in Russia, attend a meeting, connect with a suspect or a prospective recruit. Back in the U.S., the carrot is still being dangled but maybe a little further ahead. This time, he is brought into one of the numerous FBI terrorist sting' operations. Buy some powder, take these backpacks to Copley Square.
They could have been instructed to show up and leave the backpacks; the photo which seems to show Dzhokhar leaving and still carrying a backpack could mean that he forgot or disobeyed.
What if some FBI agents thought it was just another sting and it wasn't? What if the CIA hijacked the FBI's operation and turned it live?
Two bombs exploded in Copley Square but between one and three other bombs were found, and the brothers did not bring them. In whose backpacks did they arrive?
What if Tamerlan had confided in his gym friend, Todarev, that he was doing work for the FBI or CIA, and Todarev said as much while being questioned? What if the FBI merely suspected that he knew? There had to be some reason why the FBI's Boston special agent sent everyone else from the room, then executed the witness, which is certainly what happened.
The brothers, three days after the bombing, tried to run, but they were seriously ill-prepared. One gun, no cash, Dhzokhar's Honda. Are these the master terrorists who eluded hundreds of security personnel and cops at the Marathon, fooled the dogs, avoided being seen by rooftop observers? Or are they patsies, cut loose and running?
The Boston Marathon bombing produced the most drastic military presence on American streets since the Revolutionary War. A major American city was effectively shut down. There's a reason why this had not happened before: it was illegal. And despite the militarization of urban police forces, there was still a significant distinction between the two: police forces are civilian and they are accountable to civilians. The military is accountable to no one.
Shortly after Boston, the U.S. military did something quite remarkable and alarming: it granted itself authority over civil disturbances. There has been no notice taken of this in the mainstream media, nor on Capitol Hill. But it happened.
By making a few seemingly small changes, little noticed at the time, to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled "Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies" the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of "civil disturbances." Now, according to Bruce Afran, a Rutgers constitutional law professor who is helping to lead the lawsuit against the NDAA's burial of habeas corpus, the rule can only be changed by Congress or the courts. We've already had ample evidence of how well these institutions protect our civil liberties.
"Remember, the police operate under civilian control," Afran says. "They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn't change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can't remove the military from power."
The Marathon bombing has been very convenient for people interested in further eroding the rights of citizens. With the corrupt assistance of the mass media, the U.S. government has successfully propagandized a majority into believing the hallucination that total surveillance "protects" them from "terrorists." The citizens of Boston, who were forced to stay indoors but to open their homes to search by heavily-armed government agents, were so mesmerized by the lies that rather than protest this invasion of their rights and property they issued messages of fawning appreciation to their captors. The newspapers in Boston were full of them.
The small changes' unilaterally made by the military to their own rules effectively wipe out civilian authority over police functions in the event of "disturbances."
The origin of the Boston bombing may be clouded at this point, but one thing is certain: the remaining defendant will not use the occasion of his trial to protest his innocence, even if that's so. Doubters are referred to the guilty plea entered by an innocent James Earl Ray.
When the authorities and your own attorney explain that they have plenty of evidence, even if they made it up, and that your resistance to pleading guilty will land you in the gas chamber, you will make the deal.
Boston was convenient for people who want to impose tighter controls over the American population. For that reason alone it is worth a skeptical view. Given the disturbing anomalies, the obvious lies, and the questions which seem to elude comforting answers, and despite the ready willingness of seemingly everyone in politics and in the media to convict Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his dead brother of the crime, this case is not closed.
http://lookingglass.blog.co.uk/2013/08/0...-16285661/
Dear Readers: This is the final installment in the series, Boston: The Case Is Not Closed.'
I've written major pieces before concerning what seemed like critical matters, but in each case I've had an enormous reservoir of information, much of it reliable, from which to draw. I can tell you how the Kennedys were killed and by whom with some degree of assurance because I spent about twenty years obsessively pursuing the subject. If you are obsessed by anything for a long time, you will at a minimum have a really big bag of stuff.
Boston is still too new, too unsettled. In gathering material, I pulled from the web more than a hundred articles, video and audio tapes, opinion pieces, and news columns, from which I extracted 85 pages of notes. For the most part, this column is a collection and a synthesis. I do not know what happened, but there are troubling possibilities.
14. What Might Have Happened.
There's something wrong with the official account, and there are disturbing signs, the sort of unhappy signs an experienced researcher will spot when somebody is trying to fix-up a story.
Most disturbing is the background and intelligence connections of Ruslan Tsarni and his former father-in-law, especially when superimposed over FBI claims about Tamerlan and his 2012 visit to Russia. The FBI says that it didn't follow up on its interest in Tamerlan, that the Russians never told them what their suspicions were based on, and that he was off their radar as of 2013. I find that very hard to believe.
First, the FBI would never simply let it go if a source declined to explain what it meant, and the Russian intelligence services would never pass along a warning without the details. Never. Second, FBI practice is that persons of interest are not simply dropped but are surveilled ever after; that is because the Bureau has the ability to do so and the technology to support it. Third, there are times when the FBI will back off a suspect: when asked to do so by another U.S. intelligence agency.
It is also noteworthy that the FBI, of all governmental agencies requested, has refused to testify before a House committee which is investigating what happened. From the AP wire:
"WASHINGTON - The chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee on Wednesday lambasted the Federal Bureau of Investigation for what he called attempts to "stonewall" congressional investigations of the events leading up to the Boston Marathon bombings...
""The FBI has refused to appear, and continues to refuse this committee's appropriate requests for information and documents crucial to our investigation into what happened in Boston," (Rep. Michael) McCaul said... "The information requested by this Committee belongs to the American people. It does not belong solely to the FBI, and I sincerely hope they do not intend to stonewall our inquiry into how this happened."
If Izvestia is right it claims there are documents which prove it Tamerlan attended a training seminar in the summer of 2012 run by a CIA front. If the CIA was making use of him it would not be unusual for it to ask another agency to give it room.
Tamerlan was a perfect target for intelligence recruitment. A Chechen native who spoke fluent Russian, an athlete, and a man with a grievance his exclusion from high-level competition for reasons he no doubt felt were unfair he fit the profile, as several former intelligence officers have observed.
What if the CIA or FBI, for that matter recruited Tamerlan, told him that they could solve his problems with INS and make it possible for him to qualify for the Olympics? All he had to do was help them with a little bit of spying in Russia, attend a meeting, connect with a suspect or a prospective recruit. Back in the U.S., the carrot is still being dangled but maybe a little further ahead. This time, he is brought into one of the numerous FBI terrorist sting' operations. Buy some powder, take these backpacks to Copley Square.
They could have been instructed to show up and leave the backpacks; the photo which seems to show Dzhokhar leaving and still carrying a backpack could mean that he forgot or disobeyed.
What if some FBI agents thought it was just another sting and it wasn't? What if the CIA hijacked the FBI's operation and turned it live?
Two bombs exploded in Copley Square but between one and three other bombs were found, and the brothers did not bring them. In whose backpacks did they arrive?
What if Tamerlan had confided in his gym friend, Todarev, that he was doing work for the FBI or CIA, and Todarev said as much while being questioned? What if the FBI merely suspected that he knew? There had to be some reason why the FBI's Boston special agent sent everyone else from the room, then executed the witness, which is certainly what happened.
The brothers, three days after the bombing, tried to run, but they were seriously ill-prepared. One gun, no cash, Dhzokhar's Honda. Are these the master terrorists who eluded hundreds of security personnel and cops at the Marathon, fooled the dogs, avoided being seen by rooftop observers? Or are they patsies, cut loose and running?
The Boston Marathon bombing produced the most drastic military presence on American streets since the Revolutionary War. A major American city was effectively shut down. There's a reason why this had not happened before: it was illegal. And despite the militarization of urban police forces, there was still a significant distinction between the two: police forces are civilian and they are accountable to civilians. The military is accountable to no one.
Shortly after Boston, the U.S. military did something quite remarkable and alarming: it granted itself authority over civil disturbances. There has been no notice taken of this in the mainstream media, nor on Capitol Hill. But it happened.
By making a few seemingly small changes, little noticed at the time, to a regulation in the U.S. Code titled "Defense Support of Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies" the military has quietly granted itself the ability to police the streets without obtaining prior local or state consent, upending a precedent that has been in place for more than two centuries.
The most objectionable aspect of the regulatory change is the inclusion of vague language that permits military intervention in the event of "civil disturbances." Now, according to Bruce Afran, a Rutgers constitutional law professor who is helping to lead the lawsuit against the NDAA's burial of habeas corpus, the rule can only be changed by Congress or the courts. We've already had ample evidence of how well these institutions protect our civil liberties.
"Remember, the police operate under civilian control," Afran says. "They are used to thinking in a civilian way so the comparison that they may have some assault weapons doesn't change this in any way. And they can be removed from power. You can't remove the military from power."
The Marathon bombing has been very convenient for people interested in further eroding the rights of citizens. With the corrupt assistance of the mass media, the U.S. government has successfully propagandized a majority into believing the hallucination that total surveillance "protects" them from "terrorists." The citizens of Boston, who were forced to stay indoors but to open their homes to search by heavily-armed government agents, were so mesmerized by the lies that rather than protest this invasion of their rights and property they issued messages of fawning appreciation to their captors. The newspapers in Boston were full of them.
The small changes' unilaterally made by the military to their own rules effectively wipe out civilian authority over police functions in the event of "disturbances."
The origin of the Boston bombing may be clouded at this point, but one thing is certain: the remaining defendant will not use the occasion of his trial to protest his innocence, even if that's so. Doubters are referred to the guilty plea entered by an innocent James Earl Ray.
When the authorities and your own attorney explain that they have plenty of evidence, even if they made it up, and that your resistance to pleading guilty will land you in the gas chamber, you will make the deal.
Boston was convenient for people who want to impose tighter controls over the American population. For that reason alone it is worth a skeptical view. Given the disturbing anomalies, the obvious lies, and the questions which seem to elude comforting answers, and despite the ready willingness of seemingly everyone in politics and in the media to convict Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his dead brother of the crime, this case is not closed.