Smile! FBI scanning driver’s license images

Agreements reveal goal is ‘photo gallery of potential matches’

SOURCE

The FBI has gained access to driver’s license photos for residents of Nebraska, Illinois, South Carolina, Utah, North Carolina, Delaware, Texas and other states to hunt for suspects in criminal investigations.

In memorandums obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request by the Electronic Privacy Information Center, the FBI is authorized to search state databases, which include images and personal information.

Continue reading

Michael Hastings sent panicked email about FBI probe hours before death: report

The journalist’s fiery 4 a.m. single-car crash in Los Angeles came 15 hours after he sent friends an email warning them the FBI was on his tail. ‘Hey — the feds are interviewing my “close friends and associates,”‘ the message said. ‘Also: I’m onto a big story, and need to go off the [radar] for a bit.’

The Internet erupted shortly after journalist Michael Hastings’ June 18 death with debates about the fiery one-car crash, who was known as a tenacious reporter unbowed by threats. A community board on Reddit speculated last week that the car was either rigged to lose control or burst into flames at a certain time.

The Internet erupted with debates about the fiery one-car crash that killed journalist Michael Hastings, who was known as a tenacious reporter unbowed by threats. A community board on Reddit speculated last week that the car was either rigged to lose control or burst into flames at a certain time.    KTLA

SOURCE

He had a big story and wanted to get off the radar until things cooled down.

Hours later, Michael Hastings was dead.

The 33-year-old journalist’s fiery 4 a.m. single-car crash June 18 in Los Angeles came 15 hours after he sent friends a panicked email warning them the FBI was on his tail.

Continue reading

Passengers on Newark-bound flight restrain man who claiming to have poisoned passengers

United Flight 116 from Hong Kong is expected to land at 1:30 p.m. The man who has not been identified claimed he had ‘poisoned everyone on board,’ though it is not known what he meant. Passengers have restrained him while the plane is en route.

Passengers on an inbound flight to Newark have restrained a man who claimed to have 'poisoned everyone on board.'

Passengers on an inbound flight to Newark have restrained a man who claimed to have ‘poisoned everyone on board.’    Julio Cortez/AP

SOURCE

Passengers aboard a Newark-bound flight have restrained a man claiming to have “poisoned everyone on board.”

The United Flight 116 from Hong Kong landed in New Jersey around 2pm, according to flight data.

Authorities tell WABC there is no evidence anyone has been poisoned and they believe the man making the claim is emotionally disturbed.

Continue reading

FBI Demands Customer Information From Google

Google ordered to hand over customer data to FBI WITHOUT warrants, citing counter-terrorism initiative

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

A federal judge has ruled that Google must comply with the FBI’s warrantless demands for customer data, rejecting the company’s argument that the practice of issuing so-called national security letters was unconstitutional and unnecessary.

MARCH 23, 2010 FILE PHOTO


Virginia Mayo/AP
A federal judge has ruled that Google Inc. must comply with the FBI’s warrantless demands for customer data, rejecting the company’s argument that the government’s practice of issuing so-called national security letters to telecommunication companies, Internet service providers, banks and others was unconstitutional and unnecessary.

Continue reading

Law Enforcement Say They Will Not Enforce Gun Confiscation

Exclusive: Cops, detectives, FBI agents, U.S. soldiers tell Natural News they will not enforce gun confiscation orders

by Mike Adams – (NaturalNews)

In the wake of the recent Sandy Hook shooting, I reached out to my contacts in law enforcement, military and (retired) FBI over the last three days, asking three simple questions:

#1) Do you think Obama will use executive orders to demand nationwide gun confiscation?

#2) If such an order is given, will you or fellow members of your organization enforce it against the citizens? (And if so, how?)

#3) What is the solution to stopping future mass shootings?

I posed these questions to one ex-FBI agent, one retired Sheriff’s deputy, two active duty city police detectives, one retired former police captain of a major U.S. city, two U.S. Army veterans and one USMC veteran, discharged several years ago after two tours in Afghanistan during which he sustained a severe personal injury. For obvious reasons, none of them wish to be identified by name, but their answers below speak to their credibility and authenticity.

Here are their answers.

#1) Will Obama use Executive Order to call for gun confiscation?

The majority of those answering this question told me they did not believe Obama would call for outright gun confiscation. One detective told me, “Obama will probably try to roll out an incremental restriction similar to the ’94 Clinton assault weapons ban.” He would then wait for another mass shooting and use that event to ratchet up the restrictions, I was told.

Only two of the eight people I questioned thought that Obama would call for outright gun confiscation, and one of those believed it would only be a restriction on so-called “assault rifles” but not shotguns or handguns.

Everyone believed that Obama would at minimum call for restrictions on weapon magazine capacity, most likely seeking to limit that to ten rounds per magazine (which is also the current limit in California). I was also told that Obama might attempt to federalize mandatory waiting periods for gun purchases, which already exist in some states but not all.

#2) Will you enforce gun confiscation against the citizens?

On this issue, the answer was resounding and unanimous: NO!

The retired police captain told me that, “Door-to-door confiscation by men and women in blue [i.e. city cops] would be a suicide mission.” If ordered to conduct such gun confiscation actions, many would simply resign on the spot rather than risk their lives in firefights with determined gun owners, he explained. “Our officers are not generally willing to assume the increased risk of such a police action.”

He also explained, importantly, that most police officers have not even been trained to conduct sweeping, community-level weapons confiscation programs. “This goes against all our community outreach efforts where we try to earn the trust of the community.” If cops suddenly became gun confiscation enforcers, trust would break down and policing would become extremely difficult, he explained.

The USMC veteran told me that some of the younger soldiers would go along with gun confiscation if ordered, but that nearly all the older military personnel would likely refuse such orders, even at risk of a court martial. “Some of the guys actually talked about this on deployment. The E-1’s might follow those orders but most of us who managed to stay alive through a couple of tours are too smart for that. You’d have AWOL out the ass. We didn’t sign up to engage Americans as enemy combatants. The answer would be F*%K NO all the way up the chain of command.”

One of the police detectives explained another reason for saying no: “There is no love for gun confiscation in law enforcement. We’re all gun owners and most of us grew up with guns, hunting, target shooting or just collecting. Most of us have gun collections when we’re off duty, and Obama himself isn’t well liked across law enforcement. There’s no way police officers are going to put their lives on the line to go along with an order from a President who really doesn’t have moral authority among cops.”

When I asked what if Bush had called for gun confiscation, and would cops be more likely to comply if the order was given by a Republican, the reply was, “For some guys, yes, because they will listen to a Republican more than a Democrat, but still for rank-and-file officers who are just here collecting a paycheck for a risky job, they’re no way they’re going to engage in what is basically a war action just to keep that job. You can’t pay them enough to pull that kind of duty, gun confiscation.”

I was told by more than one person in this group that any effort by Obama to invoke gun confiscation could lead America to civil war if any real effort were made to enforce it.

#3) What is the solution to stopping mass shootings?

The former police captain explained that the real problem with shootings in his city was, “dirt-cheap handguns” also called “Saturday Night Specials.” As he explained, “People that spend $500 on a nice handgun are almost never the problem when it comes to violent crime. It’s the ones who pick up a junk gun for $50 on the street.”

When I asked him about a practical solution to reduce shootings, he said that in his opinion, “Levying new taxes on all handguns like the tax stamps on class three weapons” would likely prevent new guns from being purchased by most violent criminals, but it wouldn’t take guns out of the hands of criminals who already have them. “These people will break into your car to steal the coins out of your vehicle console. They have no morals, no limits. There’s almost nothing they won’t do to get what they want, which is usually drugs.”

As background, the BATF currently levies a $200 tax stamp for the transfer of any suppressor (silencer), short-barreled rifle, or full-auto weapon, all of which are VERY expensive to acquire and require extensive background checks to legally own.

“Most of the gun violence in our city is drug addicts raiding the homes of other drug addicts. The statistics might appear to show a lot of armed robberies and shootings, but it’s really just a small subset of homes or apartments getting raided over and over again by the same people, the drug dealers.” When I asked what the real drug problem was, he answered without hesitation. “Meth.” Not pot, not marijuana, not even heroin. Meth is the drug that drives violent crime in America’s cities.

The retired Sheriff’s deputy told me that the solution was to, “Arm the teachers. Tear down the ‘gun free zone’ signs and put weapons in the hands of school personnel.”

This opinion was seconded by one of the active-duty police detectives, who said he had actually worked several shootings, but never a mass shooting. “A mass shooting takes time, often several minutes,” he explained. “That’s too fast for the police to arrive on scene, but it’s plenty of time for someone already on location to pursue and engage the active shooter.”

He went on to explain that in the training they have been receiving over the last five years, they have been taught that ANY engagement of an active shooter — even shots that don’t hit the shooter — are now believed among law enforcement to disrupt the shooter and force him to seek cover, during which his massacre is interrupted and delayed. Where police have traditionally been trained to “confirm your sight picture” of weapon sights on the target before pulling the trigger, that training is being modified in some cities where, in the context of a mass shooter firing off a large number of rounds, even returning so-called “suppressing fire” is now considered tactically acceptable until additional backup arrives. The idea now is to go in and engage the shooter, even if you’re just one officer on the scene.

This is contradictory to previous training, and it goes against most cops’ safety rules which include, “always know what is BEYOND your target.” But tacticians in law enforcement are apparently now figuring out that the opportunity cost of NOT shooting back is much greater than the relatively small risk of hitting an innocent victim when laying down suppressing fire.

It is therefore believed, I was told, that even concealed carry principals or other school staff can effectively lay down that “suppressing fire” even if they are not nailing the active shooter. Obviously, this does not mean firing blindly into a crowd, for example. Each tactical situation is unique and requires rapid assessment before pulling the trigger in any direction.

There is an excellent article on all this at PoliceOne.com, covering a hard-hitting presentation by Lt. Colonel Dave Grossman. Here’s a particularly compelling excerpt from the article:

The challenge for law enforcement agencies and officers, then, is to overcome not only the attacks taking place in schools, but to first overcome the denial in the minds of mayors, city councils, school administrators, and parents. Grossman said that agencies and officers, although facing an uphill slog against the denial of the general public, must diligently work toward increasing understanding among the sheep that the wolves are coming for their children. Police officers must train and drill with teachers, not only so responding officers are intimately familiar with the facilities, but so that teachers know what they can do in the event of an attack.

“Come with me to the library at Columbine High School,” Grossman said. “The teacher in the library at Columbine High School spent her professional lifetime preparing for a fire, and we can all agree if there had been a fire in that library, that teacher would have instinctively, reflexively known what to do.

“But the thing most likely to kill her kids — the thing hundreds of times more likely to kill her kids, the teacher didn’t have a clue what to do. She should have put those kids in the librarian’s office but she didn’t know that. So she did the worst thing possible — she tried to secure her kids in an un-securable location. She told the kids to hide in the library — a library that has plate glass windows for walls. It’s an aquarium, it’s a fish bowl. She told the kids to hide in a fishbowl. What did those killers see? They saw targets. They saw fish in a fish bowl.”

Grossman said that if the school administrators at Columbine had spent a fraction of the money they’d spent preparing for fire doing lockdown drills and talking with local law enforcers about the violent dangers they face, the outcome that day may have been different.

Rhetorically he asked the assembled cops, “If somebody had spent five minutes telling that teacher what to do, do you think lives would have been saved at Columbine?”

Conclusion: Civil War?

All my contact in law enforcement are in Southern U.S. states. Opinions may be very different in Northern or Eastern cities such as Chicago, New York or New Jersey.

Nevertheless, even if opinions are different in other cities and states, it is clear to me that law enforcement in Southern states will NOT comply with gun confiscation directives issued by Obama. Obama simply does not have the moral authority — nor the law enforcement support — to pull off such an action. While his political supporters claim he has a “mandate” across America, that’s far from the truth. Obama is widely despised across states like Texas, Florida, Arizona and nearly all of rural America. He only enjoys support in the cities, and primarily in the inner cities.

Also, throughout law enforcement it is widely known that Obama staged Operation Fast & Furious and then got caught. The fact that at least one murder of a U.S. border patrol agent was caused by one of these weapons has made U.S. law enforcement officers realize that the Obama administration is, in many ways, actively working against their interests and even compromising their safety.

The question was raised to me: If Obama is against gun violence, why did he allow thousands of guns to “walk” into the hands of Mexican drug gangs, knowing they would be turned against U.S. law enforcement officers? (Don’t hold your breath waiting for Obama to shed a tear for Brian Terry…)

Conclusion? If Obama were to announce a nationwide gun confiscation order, it might set off a civil war, pitting armed gun owners, cops, veterans and preppers against the completely disarmed, trendy, undisciplined anti-gun inner-city liberals. Gee, I wonder who would win that war?

Is this all a ploy to open the door for UN troops on the streets in America?

Finally, it’s worth considering that civil war may be exactly what Obama wants to cause. It would rip America apart, making way for United Nations troops to invade and seize control, claiming “humanitarian” justification. This could be precisely the action needed to unleash blue helmets across America and push for nationwide disarmament and military occupation.

In recognizing this, I’m about to re-read Patriots by James Wesley Rawles. You should too. And check out his website while you’re at it: www.SurvivalBlog.com

For the record, Natural News supports cops, veterans and Sheriffs in the fight to defend the U.S. Constitution, its Bill of Rights, and real freedom in America. We will not stand idly by and let a group of political thugs and bullies take away our sacred right to self defense. www.InfoWars.com

FBI’s Latest Proposal for a Wiretap-Ready Internet Should Be Trashed

photo: Matt Blaze / Flickr

SOURCE

The FBI has some strange ideas about how to “update” federal surveillance laws: They’re calling for legislation to penalize online services that provide users with too much security.

I’m not kidding. The proposal was revealed in The Washington Post last week — and a couple days ago, a front-page story in The New York Times reported the Obama administration is preparing to back it.

Why? Federal law enforcement agencies like the FBI have long feared their wiretap capabilities would begin “going dark” as criminals and terrorists — along with ordinary citizens — shift from telephone networks, which are required to be wiretap-ready under the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), to the dizzying array of online communications platforms available today.

The FBI’s statutory cure against ‘going dark’ would surely be worse than the disease.

While it’s not yet clear how dire the going-dark scenario really is, the statutory “cure” proposed by the FBI — with fines starting at $25,000 a day for companies that aren’t wiretap capable — would surely be worse than the disease.

The FBI’s misguided proposal would impose costly burdens on thousands of companies (and threaten to entirely kill those whose business model centers on providing highly secure encrypted communications), while making cloud solutions less attractive to businesses and users. It would aid totalitarian governments eager to spy on their citizens while distorting business decisions about software design. Perhaps worst of all, it would treat millions of law-abiding users with legitimate security needs as presumed criminals — while doing little to hamper actual criminals.

It Stifles Innovation

The FBI’s plan would effectively make an entire category of emerging secure platforms — such as the encrypted voice app Silent Circle or the Dropbox-like cloud storage service Spider Oak — illegal overnight. Such services protect user confidentiality by ensuring that not even the company’s employees can access sensitive data; only the end users retain the encryption keys needed to unlock their content.

This is hugely attractive for users who might otherwise be wary about relying on cloud services — whether they’re businesses negotiating multi-million dollar mergers, lawyers and therapists handling confidential documents, activists in authoritarian states, or just couples looking to back up their newborn photos.

But if the FBI gets its way, companies won’t be able to adopt that “end to end” encryption model, or offer their users the security it provides. A wiretap interface is essentially an intentional security vulnerability, as network engineer Susan Landau points out — which means requiring companies to be wiretap-capable is also mandating them to design less secure services.

That comes with a potentially large economic downside — and not just to cloud companies: If cloud providers can’t promise iron-clad confidentiality, corporations may well keep operating their own outdated systems, even though shifting to a secure cloud solution would be more efficient and less expensive.

It’s Tech-Ignorant

Typically, the FBI is claiming that they just want internet platforms to be subject to the same requirements as phone networks (which are familiarly accessible to them under CALEA).

But as a group of renowned computer scientists point out in an important new paper, “Going Bright: Wiretapping without Weakening Communications Infrastructure,” this misleading analogy ignores key differences between the architectures of these networks.

For one, online platforms are altered and updated far more frequently than phone networks — and there are a hell of a lot more online services than there are phone carriers. That means an interception mandate imposes a greater burden on a larger number of much smaller firms.

It also means that as platforms evolve, the code firms deploy to provide wiretap functionality is bound to have vulnerabilities. This provides hackers with ample incentive to simultaneously compromise an entire user base — and the sweetly ironic prospect of doing so through a law enforcement interface would be irresistible to them.

More fundamentally, the internet is a decentralized packet-switched network that operates very differently from a centrally-switched phone network — and many types of online communication follow the same design principle. For example, video-chat services like Skype rely on a peer-to-peer design that doesn’t require a centralized hub to route calls. Because it doesn’t depend on a single company’s servers to handle all the traffic, this architecture makes the service resilient and allows it to scale more easily — as well as more difficult for repressive regimes to block.

But the lack of a central hub also makes peer-to-peer communications inherently trickier to intercept. And threatening hefty fines for companies that can’t reliably provide access to user communications could easily deter companies from choosing the approach, even when it makes the most sense on economic or engineering grounds.

Instead of being decided by what’s best for the vast majority of users, communications architectures would be determined by what makes things easiest for law enforcement – essentially trading off the costs of the rare and tiny fraction of users who might be criminals with the the benefits of the many.

That’s utterly at odds with the spirit of permissionless innovation that has made the internet such a spectacular engine of economic and cultural growth.

Instead of being decided by what’s best for the vast majority of users, communications architectures would be determined by what makes things easiest for law enforcement to wiretap.

And Ironically, It Won’t Really Protect Us

But if slowing innovation and weakening security is the price of catching terrorists and child pornographers, isn’t it a price worth paying?

Not if it doesn’t work.

Once it’s clear that online companies can’t promise true security, the most sophisticated and dangerous criminals will simply implement their own client-side encryption. DIY encryption may be too difficult or inconvenient for ordinary users, who benefit from services that take the hassle out of security — but the criminals the FBI is most interested in will doubtless find it worth the extra trouble.

As security researcher Matt Blaze and Susan Landau noted here in Wired, criminals, rival nation states, and rogue hackers routinely seek out and exploit vulnerabilities in our computers and networks … much faster than we can fix them. We don’t need to add wiretapping interfaces as new and “particularly juicy” targets to this cybersecurity landscape.

What we need to do is urge the FBI to find other ways to gather the evidence it needs — approaches that don’t indiscriminately compromise user security and online innovation. Instead of looking to Congress to add new vulnerabilities, the Bureau could focus on becoming better hackers of existing systems (for example, by exploiting bugs as backdoors).

In short, the FBI proposal is all cost for little to no benefit. The Obama administration needs to dump this ill-conceived scheme on the trash heap where it belongs.

.

top of page ^

Are all telephone calls recorded and accessible to the US government?

Government hears our phone calls

Glenn Greenwald
The Guardian
May 5, 2013

The real capabilities and behavior of the US surveillance state are almost entirely unknown to the American public because, like most things of significance done by the US government, it operates behind an impenetrable wall of secrecy. But a seemingly spontaneous admission this week by a former FBI counterterrorism agent provides a rather startling acknowledgment of just how vast and invasive these surveillance activities are.

Over the past couple days, cable news tabloid shows such as CNN’s Out Front with Erin Burnett have been excitingly focused on the possible involvement in the Boston Marathon attack of Katherine Russell, the 24-year-old American widow of the deceased suspect, Tamerlan Tsarnaev. As part of their relentless stream of leaks uncritically disseminated by our Adversarial Press Corps, anonymous government officials are claiming that they are now focused on telephone calls between Russell and Tsarnaev that took place both before and after the attack to determine if she had prior knowledge of the plot or participated in any way.

On Wednesday night, Burnett interviewed Tim Clemente, a former FBI counterterrorism agent, about whether the FBI would be able to discover the contents of past telephone conversations between the two. He quite clearly insisted that they could:

BURNETT: Tim, is there any way, obviously, there is a voice mail they can try to get the phone companies to give that up at this point. It’s not a voice mail. It’s just a conversation. There’s no way they actually can find out what happened, right, unless she tells them?

CLEMENTE: “No, there is a way. We certainly have ways in national security investigations to find out exactly what was said in that conversation. It’s not necessarily something that the FBI is going to want to present in court, but it may help lead the investigation and/or lead to questioning of her. We certainly can find that out.

BURNETT: “So they can actually get that? People are saying, look, that is incredible.

CLEMENTE: “No, welcome to America. All of that stuff is being captured as we speak whether we know it or like it or not.”

Read full article

.

top of page ^

What’s The Real Story Behind The Boston Bombings?

Mike Adams
Natural News
April 20, 2013

I’m trying to get a grip on the full spectacle of the police state theater we have all just witnessed in Boston. Where to begin?

Do we begin with the “lockdown” order that forced 400,000+ Bostonites to stay off the streets and hide in their homes while nobody admits it’s actually martial law?

Do we begin with the militarized masses of armed-up police rolling down the streets of Boston in bomb-proof assault vehicles, all in the hunt for one teenager? Click here for astonishing pictures of martial law in Boston.

Or do we even attempt to examine the spectacle of the mainstream media’s agenda-scripted coverage of all this and its failure to try to blame the bombing on so-called “right-wing extremists?”

In examining the events of the week, a rational person can’t help but conclude that only a small part of what’s being officially reported about the Boston marathon bombers has any basis in fact. And even after the announced arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the remaining survivor of the supposed terrorist bombing duo, we still have:

• No images or video of this person placing any bomb on the ground

• No acknowledgement of the existence of the “Craft” military spooks who all carried large backpacks at the marathon and were found moving away from one of the bombs just minutes before it went off

• No apology from the mainstream media for its week-long rampage against “right-wing extremists” who it vilified as the probable bombers

• No explanation for why it takes thousands of heavily-armed police, armored assault vehicles and federal agents to find and arrest one teenager

• No reply from the FBI on just how much the FBI controlled and manipulated these suspects over the last few years, as has been described by their mother.

• No legal justification for the “lockdown” martial law declaration that has been illegally forced upon the people of Boston

But don’t hold your breath on any of this. The last thing the public would ever get in any of this would be real answers.

My working theory on what really went down

Here’s my theory on what actually happened:

The FBI “recruited” the Tsarnaeva brothers years ago as part of their ongoing campaign of staging actual terrorist attacks in the USA as is well documented in the New York Times and elsewhere.

The FBI gave these guys the skills, the plans and the materials to make the “pressure cooker” bombs, then picked the target of the Boston marathon. This tactical-level planning of terrorism by the FBI is not uncommon. As Kurt Nimmo writes on InfoWars:

The FBI is notorious for recruiting and framing terrorist patsies. A report compiled by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkley found that of the 158 prosecutions carried out on terrorism charges since 9/11, 49 defendants participated in plots that were arranged by FBI agent provocateurs.

“The Craft” operatives were then hired by the government to be on scene and observe the brothers to make sure they placed the backpacks as planned.

The original plan was to then use the explosions to blame “right-wing extremists” by nailing other patsies in the crowd who had already been set up to be present with backpacks. The two brothers would escape blame and be allowed to continue working for the FBI on other terrorism campaigns.

But when the alternative media began circulating suspicious photos of “The Craft” team members and blowing the cover on the whole operation, the FBI suddenly reversed course on Wednesday and retracted its stated arrest of a white suspect, “flipping the script” onto the Tsarnaeva brothers. Knowing they could not sustain the big lie of “right-wing extremists,” they decided to sacrifice their two pawns. If they could be killed during a firefight, that would be even better.

One of the Tsarnaeva brothers has already been shot and then run over by a vehicle (almost certainly a government vehicle, although the press ridiculously says his own brother ran over him). The other was captured last night, alive, but it has already been decided this person has no right to any due process and will be tortured and interrogated until he talks.

So the entire theatrical production now moves into Act Two, where any mention of FBI involvement will be memory-holed, and anyone who suggests the FBI might have coached or even trained these two brothers will be labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”

Score one for the FBI and its department of terrorism. This should keep the American sheeple compliant and afraid for at least another year or two…

And don’t worry; the FBI has plenty of additional terrorism plots already under way. Each of them will be released at the appropriate time to manipulate public emotions and keep driving America into a state of undeclared martial law.

Anyone who believes the official story on all this is a fool.

This article was posted: Saturday, April 20, 2013 at 12:57 pm

.

top of page ^

Boston Bomber Controlled by FBI

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars.com
April 19, 2013

Zubeidat K. Tsarnaeva, the mother of Boston bombing suspects Dzhokar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, said Friday that her eldest son Tamerlan was under the control of the FBI.

“He was controlled by the FBI, like for three, five years,” she told Russia Today during an interview. ”They knew what my son was doing, they knew what actions and what sites on the Internet he was going [to], they used to come…and talk to me…they were telling me that he was really a serious leader and they were afraid of him.”

“How could this happen?…They were controlling every step of him, and they are telling today that this is a terrorist attack,” she added.

The FBI is notorious for recruiting and framing terrorist patsies. A report compiled by Mother Jones and the Investigative Reporting Program at the University of California-Berkley found that of the 158 prosecutions carried out on terrorism charges since 9/11, 49 defendants participated in plots that were arranged by FBI agent provocateurs.

“They’re creating crimes to solve crimes so they can claim a victory in the war on terror,” explained Martin Stolar, a lawyer who represented a suspect involved in a New York City bombing plot contrived by FBI agents.

According to Business Insider, the FBI will soon make public its relationship with Tsarnaeva. A spokesperson would not confirm or deny that the agency had any previous contact.

On Friday afternoon, however, Mother Jones reported the FBI has already admitted they interviewed Tsarnaev two years ago, according to CBS News. “The agency conducted the interview at the request of a so-far unnamed foreign government, CBS says, to see if the elder Tsarnaev had any extremist ties — but their search turned up none,” writes Hannah Levintova.

.

top of page ^

Boston Highlights the Illusion of Terror & Security

Tony Cartalucci
Infowars.com
April 17, 2013

Sometime before 1775, American Founding Father, Benjamin Franklin wrote:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Across much of the West, after September 11, 2001, we have indeed given up our essential liberty, and more over, our dignity in exchange for the illusion of safety. Our streets and public events are filled with militarized police and very literally soldiers wielding machine guns and riding around in armored vehicles. And yet with this militarized security, invasive Constitution-violating searches, warrantless wiretaps, humiliating pat-downs by federal security at airports, terrorist bombs still managed to rip through the streets of Boston killing 3 and injuring many more.

There is nothing more symbolic of the fall of America as a free people than scenes of impotent militarized police standing around aimlessly with their immense arsenal cradled in their idle hands in the wake of an attack their presence did nothing to prevent. What’s more, is their presence after the attack was likewise useless, their weapons and armor incapable of doing anything to help the scores of injured.

We have given up our liberty and our dignity in order to obtain a little temporary safety – and predictably we have neither liberty nor safety.

The FBI and the Illusion of Terror

Disturbing is the habit of the FBI’s posing as terrorists with ties to Al Qaeda, approaching patsies who they then provide explosives and other weapons to, and help engineer an attack which they then “foil” to make spectacular headlines. Many times real explosives are test-detonated with suspects, before inert devices are switched in for the final attack.

In one case in Portland Oregon in 2010, a van was actually parked next to a crowded Christmas tree lighting ceremony where the FBI-entrapped suspect attempted and failed to detonate an FBI-provided inert bomb.

More astounding was the fact that the FBI had actually brought this same entrapped suspect earlier to a location in Lincoln County, Oregon, where real explosives were in fact detonated. The FBI’s official statement titled, “Oregon Resident Arrested in Plot to Bomb Christmas Tree Lighting Ceremony in Portland,” released by the U.S. Attorney’s Office on November 26, 2010 stated (emphasis added):

According to the affidavit, on November 4, 2010, Mohamud and the undercover FBI operatives traveled to a remote location in Lincoln County, Ore., where they detonated a bomb concealed in a backpack as a trial run for the upcoming attack. Afterwards, on the drive back to Corvallis, undercover FBI operatives questioned Mohamud as to whether he was capable of looking at the bodies of those who would be killed in the upcoming attack in Portland. According to the affidavit, Mohamud responded, “I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave either dead or injured.”

More frightening still was the apparent motivation behind the FBI’s uncover operation.

In 2005, Portland became the first city in the United States to withdraw from the FBI’s Joint Terrorism Task Force, (JTTF) over concerns it would threaten civil liberties. The FBI, unwelcomed in Portland, decided to then approach a dupe, entrap him, and spectacularly “foil” a high profile terror plot of their own design during Portland’s annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony – without notifying the local government or local law enforcement of the on going operation.

The operation would humiliate local representatives and in particular, Mayor Sam Adams, making them appear negligent, incompetent, and impotent. And, in the wake of the operation, citing the FBI’s charade specifically,Portland would eventually agree to rejoin the JTTF.

What, if not terrorism, would such events be classified as? The FBI’s JTTF was ousted from Portland, and it subsequently used the threat of violence to coerce the city into accepting it back. It was an operation A-Z engineered by the FBI with a specific political motivation lurking just beneath the surface.

The opaque, covert nature of these operations should also profoundly disturb readers. The FBI apparently has access to vast resources to conduct these operations, including weapons, real explosives, vehicles, and just about everything else most likely used in the Boston blasts. According to the New York Times, in their article, “Portland, Ore., Votes to Rejoin Task Force After Terrorism Scare:”

The investigation had been under way for many months, but the Portland police were consulted only near the end, largely to help with logistics of a sting operation. Mayor Sam Adams was unaware until after the arrest.

Who then is overseeing these operations outside of the FBI? These are operations where real explosives are even detonated … and in the case of the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, FBI monitored suspects actually went through with the final attack, killing 6, and wounding many more (The New York Times, “Tapes Depict Proposal to Thwart Bomb Used in Trade Center Blast“).

The answer is, no one is overseeing them, and they are kept secret until the FBI either “foils” them for political points, or a witness steps forward and reveals the FBI’s role in successful attacks that maim or kill innocent people.

This constitutes a very real terror threat to America, but one that lurks within Washington and in our cities’ local FBI offices, carried out by men in suits and ties, not cave-dwelling extremists in Afghanistan or “homegrown terrorists.” For the people of Boston, one of the first targets for investigation should in fact be, the local FBI office.

Monsters of Our Own Creation/Perpetuation

And while America’s domestic threat is one contrived and perpetuated primarily by the very people charged with defending the nation against terrorism, real foreign extremists do exist. It should surprise no one however, considering what the FBI does at home, who is minding this terrorist network abroad.

It is now believed that pressure cooker improvised explosive devices were used in the blasts – devices frequently used overseas by Al Qaeda’s many various incarnations. Should “Al Qaeda” turn out to be behind the Boston blasts, readers would benefit from understanding just what exactly “Al Qaeda” is.

CBS News in their report titled, “Homeland Security warned about pressure cooker bombs,” stated:

U.S. authorities warned as far back as nine years ago that terrorists could use metal pressure cookers to cause deadly carnage.

The common kitchen cooking implement – found in countless American homes – has emerged as a key component in the horrific bombings that killed three people and injured more than 170 at the Boston Marathon yesterday.

The article would continue by stating:

In 2004 a memo titled “Potential terrorist use of pressure cookers” alerted border inspectors, agents, law enforcement officers and other first-responders that the seemingly-innocuous items could be used to create improvised explosive devices (IEDs).

The memo says the bomb-making technique is commonly taught in Afghan terrorist training camps – and had already led to bombing casualties.

The article would also mention terrorists operating in Algeria using rigged pressure cooker devices to carry out attacks – militants long associated not only with Al Qaeda directly, but neighboring Libyan terrorist organization, the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) which was recently handed the nation of Libya by NATO.

This would also be the same Al Qaeda that the US and NATO are in the process of arming and funding in Syria for the past 2 years. Likewise, it is the same Al Qaeda spawned from the sectarian crypto-terror organization, the Muslim Brotherhood, helped into power on the back of region-wide US-engineered political destabilization, and funded to the tune of billions by America’s allies in Riyadh and Doha.

In fact, for the past 30 years, the US, Saudi Arabia, and other regional allies including Israel have cultivated, armed, funded, and expanded Al Qaeda, using them as both a casus belli for military intervention and a global mercenary force everywhere from Libya to Bosnia, Iraq to Iran, Afghanistan, and of course across Syria for the past two years.

And even as the Boston blasts appear to be shaping up as the work of sectarian extremists affiliated with this vast network of US-Saudi sponsored terror, US ally Qatar is defending its aid given to terrorists operating across Syria. Reuters reported in their article, “Qatar says aid for Syria rebels and Islamists won’t harm region,” that:

Qatar on Tuesday rejected criticism that it risked destabilizing the Middle East by supporting rebels in Syria or the Muslim Brotherhood and said it was helping people but did not interfere in governments.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has accused Arab states who are arming and sheltering rebel fighters of actions that could “create a domino effect throughout the Middle East and beyond,” with Saudi Arabia and Qatar clearly in mind.

Qatar had armed, funded, and even provided air support and troops to Al Qaeda in Libya during their successful bid to overthrow the government and take power in Tripoli. The Guardian reported in their article, “Qatar admits sending hundreds of troops to support Libya rebels,” that:

Qatar has admitted for the first time that it sent hundreds of troops to support the Libyan rebels who overthrew Muammar Gaddafi’s regime.

The Gulf state had previously acknowledged only that its air force took part in Nato-led attacks.

So clearly, Qatar is in the business of interfering with governments, and using Al Qaeda militants to do so.

Similarly, Qatar, along with Saudi Arabia, the US, Turkey, Israel and other allies, have been funneling cash andthousands of tons of weapons into Syria – all of which have ended up in the hands of Al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise, Jabhat al-Nusra.

The New York Times in their article titled, “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With C.I.A. Aid,” admits that:

With help from the C.I.A., Arab governments and Turkey have sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters in recent months, expanding a secret airlift of arms and equipment for the uprising against President Bashar al-Assad, according to air traffic data, interviews with officials in several countries and the accounts of rebel commanders.

The airlift, which began on a small scale in early 2012 and continued intermittently through last fall, expanded into a steady and much heavier flow late last year, the data shows. It has grown to include more than 160 military cargo flights by Jordanian, Saudi and Qatari military-style cargo planes landing at Esenboga Airport near Ankara, and, to a lesser degree, at other Turkish and Jordanian airports.

While the West attempts to claim these weapons are being sent to “moderates,” the US itself admits that Al Qaeda is operating in every major city in Syria and is by far the most highly organized, most prominent militant front in the conflict. If the West via Saudi Arabia and Qatar is sending thousands of tons of weapons to “moderates,” who is sending more weapons to Jabhat al-Nusra?

The obvious answer is there are no moderates, and the West has been intentionally arming Al Qaeda from the beginning. In fact, this is a documented conspiracy first revealed as early as 2007 by Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Seymour Hersh in his New Yorker article titled, “”The Redirection: Is the Administration’s new policy benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?” which stated specifically:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with Saudi Arabia’s government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Further evidence that the summation of US aid has fallen into the hands of Al Qaeda in Syria, comes to us from Washington Post propagandist Liz Sly who reported in her article, “U.S. feeds Syrians, but secretly,” that:

In the heart of rebel-held territory in Syria’s northern province of Aleppo, a small group of intrepid Westerners is undertaking a mission of great stealth. Living anonymously in a small rural community, they travel daily in unmarked cars, braving airstrikes, shelling and the threat of kidnapping to deliver food and other aid to needy Syrians — all of it paid for by the U.S. government.

Sly then claims that most Syrians credit Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra with providing the aid:

“America has done nothing for us. Nothing at all,” said Mohammed Fouad Waisi, 50, spitting out the words for emphasis in his small Aleppo grocery store, which adjoins a bakery where he buys bread every day. The bakery is fully supplied with flour paid for by the United States. But Waisi credited Jabhat al-Nusra — a rebel group the United States has designated a terrorist organization because of its ties to al-Qaeda — with providing flour to the region, though he admitted he wasn’t sure where it comes from.

And while Sly attempts to spin the story as merely misdirected anger and ignorance on the part of Syrians receiving the aid, it is well documented that bakeries in terrorist-held territory are manned by Al Qaeda militants. In fact, while Sly maintains that “security concerns” are owed for America’s opaque aid distribution, it appears more likely the US is attempting to insidiously obfuscate its use of humanitarian aid to help its militant proxies win “hearts and minds” amid a humanitarian catastrophe the West itself engineered and perpetuated intentionally.

The London Telegraph reported in their article, “Syria: how jihadist group Jabhat al-Nusra is taking over Syria’s revolution,” that taking over bakeries was a key strategy used by Al Qaeda’s al-Nusra front to “win over” the population:

Then, in the past weeks, Jabhat al-Nusra – which is outside the FSA – pushed other rebel groups out of the stores and established a system to distribute bread throughout rebel areas.

In a small office attached to a bakery in the Miesseh district of Aleppo, Abu Yayha studied a map pinned on the wall. Numbers were scrawled in pencil against streets.

“We counted the population of every street to assess the need for the area,” explained Mr Yahya. “We provide 23,593 bags of bread every two days for this area. This is just in one district. We are calculating the population in other districts and doing the same there.

“In shops the cost is now 125 Syrian pounds (£1.12) for one pack. Here we sell it at 50 Syrian pounds (45p) for two bags. We distribute some for free for those who cannot pay.”

The bakery works constantly. Inside, barrows filled with dough were heaved onto a conveyor belt that chopped it into round and flat segments, before pushing the dough into a giant oven. Workers packed the steaming flatbread in bags.

“I am from Jabhat al Nusra. All the managers of all the bakeries are,” said Abu Fattah, the manager. “This makes sure that nobody steals.”

In essence, Al Qaeda is taking over neighborhoods upon a mountain of US-provided flour, in bakeries overrun and held at the barrels of US-provided guns.

With this in mind, it becomes clear that not only has America traded in its liberty and dignity for the illusion of safety, but they have done so in the face of fear manufactured and intentionally perpetuated by their own government – a government willfully using the very terror organizations they hold over the American people’s heads as justification for an ever-expanding police state at home, as an international mercenary force with which to target their geopolitical enemies abroad.

It is an illusion of both terror and security, masterfully implemented with a myriad of propagandists andcorporate-financier interests working in coordination to foist this scheme upon Western civilization and beyond. It is essential to identify these corporate-financier interests, boycott them, and permanently replace them with local solutions – lest we be bent eternally to this charade, without liberty, without dignity, and clearly, without safety.

Tony Cartalucci is the writer and editor at Land Destroyer

This article was posted: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 at 5:34 am

.

top of page ^