January 22, 2013 (CHICAGO) (WLS) -- Federal prosecutors in Chicago said they will ask that David Headley be sentenced to between 30 and 35 years in prison for his role in the 2008 Mumbai Massacre.
The government is not pressing for Headley to serve the maximum, life sentence.
Headley's different colored eyes are a fitting symbol of the double-agent role he has played for years.
He worked as an operative for Pakistani extremists and as an FBI informant and government witness.
Headley will be sentenced on Thursday.
We know the value of his cooperation as federal prosecutors have just filed papers laying out how long the terrorist should spend behind bars.
The horrific attack has become known as "India's 9-11".
The chief scout who did reconnaissance on each location for Pakistani terrorists was Chicago resident Headley.
According to a sentencing memorandum filed late Tuesday by federal prosecutors in Chicago, "Headley played an essential role in the planning" and "contributed to the deaths of approximately 164 men, women, and children, and injuries to hundreds more."
Read the government's position paper on Headley sentencing here
There were six Americans killed in the November 2008 attacks.
For Headley, who was taken into custody by the FBI in Chicago in 2009, "there is little question that life imprisonment would be an appropriate punishment."
But from the moment of his arrest, Headley began cooperating, according to the government.
Tahawur Hussain Rana, of the Chicago cell of the Lashkar-e-Toiba (LET) and the principal accomplice of David Coleman Headley, has already been sentenced by a Chicago court to 14 years in prison for his association with Headley and the LET in the abandoned plans to blow up the office of a Danish newspaper in Copenhagen which had published caricatures of the Holy Prophet.
Curiously, he has not been convicted for his role in the Mumbai blasts of 26/11 despite the fact that he had facilitated the frequent visits of Headley to India at the instance of the LET to collect operational intelligence and, according to his admission, was aware of the impending terrorist strikes in Mumbai even though had no role in it. According to him, a retired Pakistani Army officer told him of the impending strike during a meeting in Dubai before he flew to China on his way back to Chicago.
India – United States Relations
This was sufficiently strong evidence for convicting him as an accomplice before the act, but this aspect seems to have been ignored by the prosecution and the court. This could open the door for the Government of India moving for his extradition since the bar of double jeopardy may not be attracted. Under this, a person cannot be convicted twice for the same offence.
Even though officials of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) have been quoted in sections of the media as saying that they would move for his extradition, I have doubts whether any serious efforts would be made by the NIA to get him to India.
Headley is to be sentenced for his involvement in the Mumbai and Copenhagen cases and his co-operation with the LET and suspected officers of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) by a Chicago court on January 24, 2013. Since his trial is based on a plea bargain with the USA’s Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on the basis of his total confession, the FBI has not sought the death sentence for him. The FBI has also reportedly made a commitment that he will not be extradited to India. He is, therefore, expected to be sentenced to a prison term likely to be more than that awarded to Rana.
Headley and Rana were the tip of the Chicago iceberg of the LET which facilitated the 26/11 terrorist strikes in Mumbai by the LET and ISI masterminds in Pakistan. The FBI and the NIA, whose officials were allowed by the FBI to question Headley in FBI custody, were able to collect details regarding the Pakistani links of Headley and Rana.
The hidden iceberg itself consisted of the contacts of Headley and Rana in the Indian Muslim community who facilitated their frequent clandestine travels to India for helping the LET leaders in Pakistan and the ISI in planning and executing the 26/11 strikes. Surprisingly, neither in the narrative of the FBI nor in that of the NIA is there much reference to the Indian cells of Headley and Rana. No attempt has been made to identify them and question them.
In this courtroom sketch, Linda Ragsdale, center, an American who was shot during the 2008 terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India, reads a statement during the sentencing hearing of David Coleman Headley, 52, left, before U.S. District Judge Harry Leinenweber in Chicago, on Jan. 24, 2013. Leinenweber imposed a sentence of 35 years for the key role Headley played in the Mumbai attacks. (Tom Gianni/AP Photo)
Moreover, the FBI, U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration and other agencies have not fully explained the extent of Headley's work as a DEA informant, especially in 2001 when he began gathering intelligence on Islamic extremists as well as drug traffickers.
The DEA says he was deactivated as an informant in early 2002 as he began training with Lashkar. Other U.S. agencies say he remained a DEA informant in some capacity until at least 2005. And Indian officials allege that he remained a U.S. agent later than that.
Finally, authorities have not explained why it took almost a year to arrest Headley after the Mumbai attacks. Days after, an associate of Headley's mother came forward to tell FBI agents in Philadelphia she believed he was involved with Lashkar, the group behind the assault.
The FBI has admitted that agents then discovered that Headley had been the subject of repeated previous allegations of terrorism involvement. Nonetheless, agents failed to find Headley in Chicago, and he returned to India and Europe for new terrorist reconnaissance.
It took the FBI until July of 2009, when British intelligence detected him meeting with al Qaeda operatives, to locate Headley and begin surveillance, according to U.S. officials.
"It is baffling to me that he was not interviewed sooner, especially post-Mumbai," said Charles Swift, a lawyer for Rana who specializes in terror cases.
We reported last year:
The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this.As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes:This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism.
The government treats copyright infringers as terrorists, and swat teams have been deployed against them. See this, this, this and this.
As the executive director of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School notes:
This administration … publishes a newsletter about its efforts with language that compares copyright infringement to terrorism.
The American government is using copyright laws to crack down on political dissent just like China and Russia.
We noted last month that the “cyber-security” laws have very little to do with security.
The Verge reported last month:
In the State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama announced a sweepingexecutive order implementing new national cybersecurity measures, opening the door for intelligence agencies to share more information about suspected “cyber threats” with private companies that oversee the nation’s “critical infrastructure.” The order is voluntary, giving companies the choice of whether or not they want to receive the information, and takes effect in four months, by June 12.***“Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, in an email to The Verge. “Such threats include web site defacement, espionage,theft of intellectual property, denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.”***“The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote.The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…”But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 bill, also passed in response to September 11, which reads:“The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s cybersecurity order as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture.”In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, includes 18 different industriesin its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so.
“Cyber threats cover a wide range of malicious activity that can occur through cyberspace,” wrote Caitlin Hayden, spokeswoman for the White House National Security Council, in an email to The Verge. “Such threats include web site defacement, espionage,theft of intellectual property, denial of service attacks, and destructive malware.”
“The EO [executive order] relies on the definition of critical infrastructure found in the Homeland Security Act of 2002,” Hayden wrote.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (PDF), passed in the wake of the September 11, 2001 terror attacks, was what created the Department of Homeland Security. At that time, the US was still reeling from the attacks and Congress sought to rapidly bolster the nation’s defenses, including “critical infrastructure” as part of its definition of “terrorism.” As the act states: “The term ‘terrorism’ means any activity that involves an act that is dangerous to human life or potentially destructive of critical infrastructure or key resources…”
But again, that act doesn’t exactly spell out which infrastructure is considered “critical,” instead pointing to the definition as outlined in a 2001 bill, also passed in response to September 11, which reads:
“The term “critical infrastructure” means systems and assets, whether physical or virtual, so vital to the United States that the incapacity or destruction of such systems and assets would have a debilitating impact on security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.”
This is the same exact definition that was originally provided in the president’s cybersecurity order as originally published on Tuesday, meaning that the White House appears to be relying to some degree on circular reasoning when it comes to that definition. Some in Washington, including the right-leaning think tank The Heritage Foundation, are worried that the definition is too broad and “could be understood to include systems normally considered outside the cybersecurity conversation, such as agriculture.”
In fact, the Department of Homeland Security, which is one of the agencies that will be sharing information on cyber threats thanks to the order, includes 18 different industriesin its own label of “critical infrastructure,” from agriculture to banking to national monuments. There’s an argument to be made that including such a broad and diverse swath of industries under the blanket term “critical” is reasonable given the overall increasing dependence of virtually all businesses on the internet for core functions. But even in that case, its unclear how casting such a wide net would be helpful in defending against cyber threats, especially as there is a limited pool of those with the expertise and ability to do so.
It’s not just intellectual property. The government is widely using anti-terror laws to help giant businesses … and to crush those who speak out against their abusive practices, labeling anyone who speaks out as a potential bad guy.
This year, the chief assigned criminal intelligence officers to work on an investigation with the Joint Terrorism Task Force that occurred outside of Portland's city limits, after consultation with the police commissioner, the chief wrote in the report.
Those are the most details offered in the chief's 2013 annual report on the bureau's involvement in the federal task force. He'll present it to the City Council at 9:30 a.m. Wednesday.
"We have committed a very limited amount of bureau resources to JTTF work, so disclosure of the number of cases or hours worked may compromise ongoing investigations and reveal the operational tempo of our work on terrorism,'' the chief wrote in the report.
A 2011 agreement between the City Council and federal officials allowed for "as needed" involvement by Portland Police Bureau officers in the task force. The City Council vote reversed a 2005 decision that made Portland the first city in the country to pull out of the task force.
The 2011 agreement called on the bureau to submit annual reports to the council by the end of January each year.
Portland's new Mayor Charlie Hales sought a delay in the report's presentation until this month. The report says Hales met with Gregory A. Fowler, Special Agent-in-Charge of the FBI's Portland field office, on Feb. 14.
According to the report dated Feb. 19 and made public Wednesday, the Portland police chief, assistant chief in charge of investigations, the lieutenant of the Police Bureau's Criminal Intelligence Unit, and two of the unit's officers have been granted "Secret'' clearance by the FBI. That's a step down from Top Secret clearance, which would allow Portland officers unescorted access to FBI offices or access to informants' information.
It was determined that Portland officers would not need the Top Secret clearance, Reese wrote in the report.
The chief said he limited Portland police involvement with the federal task force to two criminal intelligence officers on an as-needed basis to help ensure "effective oversight,'' the report says.
A Portland police assistant chief, and the lieutenant of the criminal intelligence unit attend the task force's executive committee meetings, either with the chief, or in his place, the report says. A senior deputy city attorney provided training to the Portland criminal intelligence officers on the legal guidelines for their involvement in any federal terrorism investigation.
The city attorney's office found Portland police have complied with Oregon law and the city's agreement that restricts police involvement in terrorism investigations found to have a "criminal nexus,'' the report says.
Portland police were not involved in the recent investigation and March 5 arrest of a 48-year-old city employee, Reaz Qadir Khan, who is accused of sending aid for a terrorist implicated in a 2009 suicide attack in Pakistan.
This is not the first time the police bureau's annual report didn't meet the city's deadline.
It was issued in February in 2012, under then-Mayor Sam Adams, who filed paperwork authorizing a delay that year. When that report came out, Commissioner Amanda Fritz said she expected more details -- including the number of cases requiring police participation and hours worked -- and voted against the report in a 4-1 decision.
by Press Core
In 1975, during the Church Committee hearings, the existence of a secret assassination weapon came to light. The CIA had developed a poison that caused the victim to have an immediate heart attack. This poison could be frozen into the shape of a dart and then fired at high speed from a pistol. The gun was capable of shooting the icy projectile with enough speed that the dart would go right through the clothes of the target and leave just a tiny red mark. Once in the body the poison would melt and be absorbed into the blood and cause a heart attack! The poison was developed to be undetectable by modern autopsy procedures.
Can you give a person cancer?
If cancer in animals can be caused by injecting them with cancer viruses and bacteria, it would certainly be possible to do the same with human beings!
In 1931, Cornelius Rhoads, a pathologist from the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, purposely infects human test subjects in Puerto Rico with cancer cells; 13 of them died. Though a Puerto Rican doctor later discovers that Rhoads purposely covered up some of the details of his experiment and Rhoads himself gives a written testimony stating he believes that all Puerto Ricans should be killed, he later goes on to establish the U.S. Army Biological Warfare facilities in Fort Detrick Maryland (origin of the HIV/AIDS virus, the Avian Flu virus and the Swine Flu / A-H1N1 virus), Utah and Panama, and is named to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, where he begins a series of radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients.
The answer to the question – Can you give a person cancer – is yes. After nearly 80 years of research and development there is now a way to simulate a real heart attack and to give a healthy person cancer. Both have been used as a means of assassination. Only a very skilled pathologist, who knew exactly what to look for at an autopsy, could distinguish an assassination induced heart attack or cancer from the real thing.
Is death by heart attack, burst aneurysm, of cerebral hemorrhage a “natural cause”? Not if government agencies have found a way to influence your heart rate, blood pressure, or vascular dilatation. Neurological research has found that the brain has specific frequencies for each voluntary movement called preparatory sets. By firing at your chest with a microwave beam containing the ELF signals given off by the heart, this organ can be put into a chaotic state, the so-called heart attack. In this way, high profile leaders of political parties who are prone to heart attacks can be killed off before they cause any trouble. Jack Ruby died of cancer a few weeks after his conviction for murder had been overruled in appeals court and he was ordered to stand trial outside of Dallas – thus allowing him to speak freely if he so desired. There was little hesitancy in Jack Ruby killing Lee Harvey Oswald in order to prevent him from talking, so there is no reason to suspect that any more consideration would have been shown Jack Ruby if he had posed a threat to people in the US government who had conspired to murder the president of the United States – John F Kennedy.
Matt Simmons, an oil industry expert, was assassinated for turning whistle blower over the Obama administration coverup of the BP Gulf Oil Spill. Investment banker Matt Simmons, who died suddenly, was an energy industry insider and presidential adviser whose profile soared when he wrote that Saudi Arabia is running out of oil and world production is peaking. Simmons, 67, died at his vacation home in Maine. An autopsy by the state medical examiner’s office concluded Monday that he died from accidental drowning “with heart disease as a contributing factor.”
His 2005 best-selling book, Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock and the World Economy, brought him a wider audience. The book argued that Saudi Arabia vastly overstated the size of its oil reserves and that the world was on the verge of a severe oil shortage as the largest oil fields become depleted. This revelation is backed up by Iran. Iran knows the Middle East oil supply is quickly drying up and for that reason it is now focusing on building nuclear reactors. Once the oil runs out Iran will be the only country in the Middle East that will be energy self-sufficient. All of the other Middle Eastern countries, including Saudi Arabia will become Third World impoverished states.
Former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic was also assassinated. He was found dead in the detention center at The Hague tribunal. Mr Milosevic faced charges of war crimes and crimes against humanity for his alleged central role in the wars in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo during the 1990s. He also faced genocide charges over the 1992-95 Bosnia war, in which 100,000 people died.
Milosevic wrote a letter one day before his death claiming he was being poisoned to death in jail. An autopsy verified his claim as it showed that Milosevic’s body contained a drug that rendered his usual medication for high blood pressure and his heart condition ineffective, causing the heart attack that led to his death.
Former MI6 agent Richard Tomlinson told reporters that he saw documents in 1992 that discussed assassinating Milosevic by means of a staged car accident, where the driver would be blinded by a flash of light and remote controlled brake failure enacted to cause the crash. This exact same technique was utilized for real in the murder of Princess Diana.
If Milosevic was murdered, who would ultimately be responsible? NATO.
Because, though the ICTY (or ‘Hague Tribunal’) presents itself to the world as a UN body, NATO officials have themselves made clear, in public, that it really belongs to NATO. NATO appointed the prosecutors, and the judges who ruled out investigating any war crimes accusations against NATO. It follows that Slobodan Milosevic, who was a prisoner of the Hague Tribunal’s Scheveningen prison when he died, was a prisoner of NATO. NATO had both motive and opportunity to kill him.
In March 2002, Milosevic presented the NATO controlled Hague tribunal with FBI documents proving that both the United States government and NATO provided financial and military support for Al-Qaeda to aid the Kosovo Liberation Army in its war against Serbia. This didn’t go down too well at the Pentagon and the White House, who at the time were trying to sell a war on terror and gearing up to justify invading Iraq.
During Milosevic’s trial for war crimes NATO alleged that the Serbs had committed a massacre of Albanian civilians in the Kosovo town of Racak. Evidence presented in the court showed that NATO’s claim was a hoax. This is especially embarrassing because the allegation of a massacre at Racak was the excuse that NATO used to begin bombing the Serbs on 24 March 1999 (the carpet bombing were done by the United States Air Force -authorized by then president Bill and Hillary Clinton). Then NATO claimed that the Serbs had supposedly been murdering 100,000 Albanian civilians. However, NATO’s own forensics reported that they could not find even one body of an Albanian civilian murdered by Milosevic’s forces. The failure to find any bodies eventually led to NATO’s absurd claim that the Serbs had supposedly covered up the genocide by moving the many thousands of bodies in freezer trucks deep into Serbia (while Bill Clinton was carpet bombing the place) without leaving a single trace of evidence. But the Hague tribunal showed these accusations to be entirely fraudulent as well.
Milosevic made several speeches in which he discussed how a group of shadowy internationalists had caused the chaos in the Balkans because it was the next step on the road to a “new world order.”
During a February 2000 Serbian Congressional speech, Milosevic stated,
“Small Serbia and people in it have demonstrated that resistance is possible. Applied at a broader level, it was organized primarily as a moral and political rebellion against tyranny, hegemony, monopolism, generating hatred, fear and new forms of violence and revenge against champions of freedom among nations and people, such a resistance would stop the escalation of modern time inquisition. Uranium bombs, computer manipulations, drug-addicted young assassins and bribed of blackmailed domestic thugs, promoted to the allies of the new world order, these are the instruments of inquisition which have surpassed, in their cruelty and cynicism, all previous forms of revengeful violence committed against the mankind in the past.”
Evidence linking Milosevic to genocides like Srebrenica, in which 7,000 Muslims died, was proven to be fraudulent. In fact, Srebrenica was a ‘UN safe zone’, yet just like Rwanda, UN peacekeepers deliberately withdrew and allowed the massacre to unfold, then blamed Milosevic. Milosevic’s exposure of UN involvement in the Srebrenica massacre was another reason why tribunal transcripts were heavily edited and censored by NATO, and another contributing factor for NATO to murder him while he was in their custody.NATO’s Hague Tribunal was clearly a kangaroo court whose sole purpose was to convince ordinary people all over the world that NATO’s destruction of Yugoslavia was justified. Since NATO failed to show this in its own court (a total absence of evidence did make this difficult), there is indeed a powerful NATO motive to murder Milosevic – to prevent his acquittal. In this way, NATO can continue to claim that Milosevic was guilty, and nobody would begin to look into the mountain of evidence that showed that it was NATO leaders (particularly US president Bill Clinton) who committed war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Yugoslavia.
So many people have been done in by cancer at a convenient time in history that it is now time to ask the question “who is assassinating people by giving their target cancer or inducing a massive heart attack”? Who ordered the hits and why?
Mr. Charles Senseney, a CIA weapon developer at Fort Detrick, Maryland, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in September 1975 where he described an umbrella poison dart gun he had made. He said it was always used in crowds with the umbrella open, firing through the webing so it would not attract attention. Since it was silent, no one in the crowd could hear it and the assassin merely would fold up the umbrella and saunter away with the crowd.
Video footage of the assassination of John F Kennedy shows this umbrella gun being used in Dealey Plaza. Video evidence of the events of November 22, 1963 shows that the first shot fired on the fateful day had always seemed to have had a paralytic effect on Kennedy. His fists were clenched and his head, shoulders and arms seemed to stiffen. An autopsy revealed that there was a small entrance wound in his neck but no evidence of a bullet path through his neck and no bullet was ever recovered that matched that small size.
Charles Senseney testified that his Special Operations Division at Fort Detrick had received assignments from the CIA to develop exotic weaponry. One of the weapons was a hand-held dart gun that could shoot a poison dart into a guard dog to put it out of action for several hours. The dart and the poison left no trace so that examination would not reveal that the dogs had been put out of action. The CIA ordered about 50 of these weapons and used them operationally.
Senseney said that the darts could have been used to kill human beings and he could not rule out the possibility that this had been done by the CIA.A special type of poison developed for the CIA induces a heart attack and leaves no trace of any external influence unless an autopsy is conducted to check for this particular poison. The CIA revealed this poison in various accounts in the early 1970s. The CIA even revealed the weapon that fired those darts that induces a heart attack at a congressional hearing.
The dart from this secret CIA weapon can penetrate clothing and leave nothing but a tiny red dot on the skin. On penetration of the deadly dart, the individual targeted for assassination may feel as if bitten by a mosquito, or they may not feel anything at all. The poisonous dart completely disintegrates upon entering the target. The lethal poison then rapidly enters the bloodstream causing a heart attack. Once the damage is done, the poison denatures quickly, so that an autopsy is very unlikely to detect that the heart attack resulted from anything other than natural causes.
A former CIA agent disclosed that the darts were made of a frozen form of the liquid poison. She disclosed that the dart would melt within the target and would only leave a very tiny red dot at the entry point – the same type of small entrance wound that was found during the autopsy of John F Kennedy.For over 50 years assassinations have been carried out so skillfully as to leave the impression that the victims died from natural causes. Details of some of the techniques used to achieve this were brought to light in 1961 when professional KGB assassin Bogdan Stashinskiy defected to the West and revealed that he had successfully performed two such missions. In 1957 he killed Ukrainian emigré writer Lev Rebet in Munich with a poison vapor gun which left the victim dead of an apparent heart attack. In 1959, the same type of weapon was used on Ukrainian emigré leader Stepan Bandera, although Bandera’s death was never fully accepted as having been from natural causes.
Among the witnesses, important people and conspirators who might have been eliminated by induced heart attack and cancer are: Jack Rudy (died of a stroke due to an undiagnosed form of aggressive cancer, just weeks after he agreed to testify before Congress about the JFK assassination), Clay Shaw, J. Edgar Hoover, Earlene Roberts (Oswald’s land-lady), Marlyn Monroe, Slobodan Milosevic, Kenneth Lay (former CEO of ENRON – the largest political campaign contributor of George W Bush and Dick Cheney), Matt Simmons, Mark Pittman (a reporter who predicted the financial crisis and exposed Federal Reserve misdoings. Pittman fought to open the Federal Reserve to more scrutiny), Elizabeth Edwards (suddenly diagnosed with cancer while her husband was campaigning against Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the presidency of the United States.
During a campaign speech to the Council on Foreign Relations in May 2007, Edwards called the War on Terrorism a slogan that was created for political reasons and that it wasn’t a plan to make the United States safe. He went further to compare it to a bumper sticker and that it had damaged the US’s alliances and standing in the world.), … enter here the names of every politically outspoken person, whistle blower or witness who died unexpectedly of a heart attack or who quickly died of an incurable cancer.
It’s nearing dusk on November 26, 2010. More than 25,000 people have gathered in a light rain at Pioneer Square in downtown Portland, Oregon to watch the annual lighting of the holiday tree, a 100-foot-tall Douglas-fir logged from the Willamette National Forest.
Three men in a nearby hotel room have just finished eating a take-out pizza. The TV turned to a local news channel, which is covering holiday celebration. The men spread towels on the floor and say an Islamic prayer, asking that Allah bless their operation. The men pat each other on the back, leave the room and walk to their vehicle, a white van.
One of the men is a teenager named Mohamed. The other two men are older. One is called Youssef. The leader of the group is a man in his fifties who known only as Hussein. Hussein is a bomb-maker for al-Qaeda. He’s been making explosives for three decades. Their operation to set off a massive bomb in the heart of Portland has been in the works for more than three months.
Hussein unlocks the doors to the van and takes the driver’s seat. The young Mohamed, who is wearing a hard-hat, slides into the passenger seat. In the cargo hold of the van sit six 55-gallon blue drums filled with nearly 2,000 pounds of fertilizer-based explosives. Each drum has an explosive cap. They are linked together by a detonation cord, which runs up to a toggle switch.
As Hussein pulls the van, which reeks of diesel fuel, out into traffic, the bomb-maker begins to chant loudly in Arabic. Hussein parks the van on Yamhill Street, directly across from Pioneer Square. He orders Mohamed to flip the toggle switch, arming the bombs.
The two men get out of the van and scurry down Broadway Street and then up to 10th avenue, where Youssef is waiting for them in an SUV. They drive to the Portland train station, where they drop Youssef off, and then park the vehicle in a lot a couple of blocks away.
Hussein mutters “Allahu Akbar.” Then turns to his teenage sidekick and asks, “You read?” Mohamed nods his head, “Ready.”
The bomb-maker hands Mohamed a cell phone. The phone is meant to activate the bomb. He reads out a number. Mohammed nervously enters the digits on the phone. There is no explosion.
Hussein suggests that the signal may be poor and that they should step out of the van. The two men get out of the van and Mohamed reenters the numbers. The phone begins to ring. Then dozens of voices shatter the tense scene, screaming “FBI! FBI!” The two men are ordered to the ground. As Hussein is being handcuffed, he struggles with the federal agents and continues to chant “Allahu Akbar! Allahu Akbar!” When Mohamed spits at an officer, Hussein says, “I love that.”
The federal agents have arrived, it seems, just in the nick of time. Their felicitous intervention has disrupted a sophisticated terrorist operation and saved thousands of innocent lives. The bomb plotters had been caught and trundled off to prison: another triumphant day in the battle to protect the homeland from al-Qaeda’s terror cells.
But wait a minute. Almost nothing about this scenario was true. The cell phone wasn’t connected to the toggle switch. The detonation cords weren’t wired to an explosive device. The blue drums weren’t filled with diesel-saturated fertilizer, but harmless grass seed. Mohamed wasn’t a member of al Qaeda. Of Somali origin, he was a troubled college dropout from Beaverton, Oregon, home of Nike. Youssef wasn’t a member of al Qaeda. Hussein was not one of al Qaeda’s top bomb makers. Youssef and Hussein were not really arrested and neither was charged with being part of a terrorist plot. Youssef and Hussein were both federal agents.
The bomb plot itself was not an al Qaeda idea. It was hatched by the FBI. Young Mohamed Mohamud did not seek out the bomb plotters; they found him and seduced the young man into joining their conspiracy. The teenager did not build the bomb. The fake bomb was actually constructed by John Hallock, who later testified that he designed the device for “maximum effect.” Mohamed did not select the target. The order to activate the device came from a federal agent. The order to detonate the bomb also came from a federal agent. From conception to execution, the infamous Portland Christmas Tree Bomb Plot was scripted by the FBI.
Yet it was Mohamed Mohamud who was arrested, slapped with federal terrorism and conspiracy changes, subjected to a bruising trial in January and convicted on all counts by a jury that deliberated less than six hours.
After the verdict was read, the gleeful FBI agents and federal prosecutors hailed their victorious sting operation, braying that they had rid the streets of a dangerous jihadist. But this was not a government sting. It was a textbook case of entrapment, where federal agents recruited a disaffected kid, whose only previous legal entanglement had been an unproven allegation of date rape during his freshman year at college, into a fake bomb plot that they had concocted.
Mohamed Mohamud was not a terrorist when the FBI began spying on him while he was still in high school. In the two years he was under FBI surveillance, he did not commit a terrorist act or join a terrorist group. It took the FBI to recruit him into a terrorist cell, indoctrinate him into terrorist ideology and lure him into participating in its bomb plot.
Our government increasingly fantasizes about blowing things up here at home. This is the sixth case where the FBI has invented a bomb plot aimed at snagging hapless, often alienated, individuals who were not terrorists until they were enticed into joining the agency’s own conspiracy. So what is the point of these operations? To scoop up a handful of estranged, young Muslim men? To make suburban Americans feel safer?
Hardly. The point is fear. The government needs to keep the public in a state of terror anxiety in order to justify its own ever-encroaching powers.
So, Mohamed sits in prison. The Constitution lies in tatters. Fear rules the land.
Jeffrey St. Clair is the editor of CounterPunch. His most recent book (with Joshua Frank) is Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).
SIGN THE PETITIONhttp://www.change.org/petitions/petition-to-free-lynne-stewart-save-her-life-release-her-now-2DECLARATION BY DICK GREGORY — APRIL 4, 2013
I hereby declare on this day commemorating the life and sacrifice of my friend
and brother in struggle, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., that in the spirit of his
moral legacy, I demand the immediate release from prison of the legendary
lawyer Lynne Stewart, who devoted her entire professional life to the poor, the
oppressed and those targeted by the police and a vindictive State.
I further declare that from this day forth, I shall refuse all solid food until
Lynne Stewart is freed and receives medical treatment in the care of her family
and with physicians of her choice without which she will die.
There is no time to lose as cancer, which had been in remission, has
metastasized since her imprisonment. It has spread to her lymph nodes, her
shoulder and appears in her bones and in her lungs.
A criminal defense attorney in New York for over 30 years, Lynne Stewart’s
unwavering dedication as a selfless advocate was acknowledged by the
community as well as judges, prosecutors and the entire legal profession. Such
has been her reputation as a fearless lawyer, ready to challenge those in power,
that judges assigned her routinely to act for defendants whom no attorney was
willing to represent.
In 2002, Lynne Stewart was targeted by then-President George Bush and
Attorney General John Ashcroft for providing a vigorous defense of her client,
the blind Egyptian cleric Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman. She was charged with
conspiracy to provide material support to a terrorist activity after she exercised
both her and her client’s first amendment rights by presenting a press release
to a Reuters journalist. She did nothing more than other attorneys, such as her
co-counsel former Attorney General Ramsey Clark, have done on behalf of their
The reason for the prosecution and persecution of Lynne Stewart is evident to
us all. It was designed to intimidate the entire legal community so that few
would dare to defend political clients whom the State demonizes and none
would provide a vigorous defense. It also was designed to narrow the meaning
of our cherished first amendment right to free speech, which the people of this
country struggled to have added to the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
The prosecution and imprisonment of Lynne Stewart is an ominous threat to
the freedom, rights and dignity of each and every American. It is the agenda of
a police state.
I ask you to join with me to demand freedom for Lynne Stewart. An
international campaign has been launched with a petition that supports her
application for compassionate release. Under the 1984 Sentencing Act, the
Bureau of Prisons can file a motion with the Court to reduce sentences “for
extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Life threatening illness is foremost
among these and Lynne Stewart meets every rational and humane criterion for
Join with me, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Pete Seeger and 6,000 other people
of conscience throughout the world who have signed this petition to compel the
Warden of the Federal Medical Center, Carswell and the Director of the Bureau
of Prisons to act. Act now. There is no time to lose.
The petition (below) can be found online at the Justice for Lynne Stewart
website: http://www.lynnestewart.org or at
Contacts: Lil Gregory at 508.746.7427 to schedule interviews with Dick Gregory and
Ralph Schoenman at 707.552.9992 for follow up information on Dick Gregory and the
Campaign to Save the Life of Lynne Stewart.
PETITION TO FREE LYNNE STEWART: SAVE HER LIFE – RELEASE HER NOW!
Lynne Stewart has devoted her life to the oppressed – a constant advocate for the
countless many deprived in the United States of their freedom and their rights.
Unjustly charged and convicted for the “crime” of providing her client with a fearless
defense, the prosecution of Lynne Stewart is an assault upon the basic freedoms of us all.
After years of post-conviction freedom, her bail was revoked arbitrarily and her
imprisonment ordered, precluding surgery she had scheduled in a major New York hospital.
The sinister meaning of the relentless persecution of Lynne Stewart is unmistakably clear.
Given her age and precarious health, the ten-year sentence she is serving is a virtual death
Since her imprisonment in the Federal Prison in Carswell, Texas her urgent need for
surgery was delayed 18 months – so long, that the operating physician pronounced the
condition as “the worst he had seen.”
Now, breast cancer, which had been in remission prior to her imprisonment, has reached
Stage Four. It has appeared in her lymph nodes, on her shoulder, in her bones and her
Her daughter, a physician, has sounded the alarm: “Under the best of circumstances,
Lynne would be in a battle of the most serious consequences with dangerous odds. With
cancer and cancer treatment, the complications can be as debilitating and as dangerous as
the cancer itself.”
In her current setting, where trips to physicians involve attempting to walk with 10 pounds
of shackles on her wrists and ankles, with connecting chains, Lynne Stewart has lacked
ready access to physicians and specialists under conditions compatible with medical
It can take weeks to see a medical provider in prison conditions. It can take weeks to report
physical changes and learn the results of treatment; and when held in the hospital, Lynne
has been shackled wrist and ankle to the bed.
This medieval “shackling” has little to do with any appropriate prison control. She is
obviously not an escape risk.
We demand abolition of this practice for all prisoners, let alone those facing surgery and the
urgent necessity of care and recovery.
It amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of human rights.
There is immediate remedy available for Lynne Stewart. Under the 1984 Sentencing Act,
after a prisoner request, the Bureau of Prisons can file a motion with the Court to reduce
sentences “for extraordinary and compelling reasons.” Life threatening illness is foremost
To misconstrue the gravamen of this compassionate release by conditioning such upon
being at death’s door – released, if at all, solely to die – is a cruel mockery converting a
prison sentence, wholly undeserved, into a death sentence.
The New York Times, in an editorial (2/12), has excoriated the Bureau of Prisons for their
restrictive crippling of this program. In a 20-year period, the Bureau released a scant 492
persons – an average of 24 a year out of a population that exceeds 220,000.
We cry out against the bureaucratic murder of Lynne Stewart.
We demand Lynne Stewart’s immediate release to receive urgent medical care in a
supportive environment indispensable to the prospect of her survival and call upon the
Bureau of Prisons to act immediately.
If Lynne’s original sentence of 28 months had not been unreasonably, punitively increased
to 10 years, she would be home now — where her medical care would be by her choice
and where those who love her best would care for her. Her isolation from this loving care
Prevent this cruelty to Lynne Stewart whose lifelong commitment to justice is now a
struggle for her life.
Free Lynne Stewart Now!
Ralph Poynter and Family
"In one of the first numbered tapes, Mr. Salem is quoted as telling agent Floyd: "Since the bomb went off I feel terrible. I feel bad. I feel here is people who don't listen." Ms. Floyd seems to commiserate, saying, "hey, I mean it wasn't like you didn't try and I didn't try." In an apparent reference to Mr. Salem's complaints about the supervisor, Agent Floyd adds, "You can't force people to do the right thing.""
"In closing I will just say that regardless of how the media and government try to shape the public perception of this case, I am convinced that Umar was given an intentionally defective bomb by a U.S. Government agent and placed on our flight without showing a passport or going through security, to stage a false terrorist attack to be used to implement various government policies."
According to Craig Murray (photo: below), former US Ambassador, human rights activist and whistle blower the FBI’s inflated profile of their prime suspect in the Boston Bombing ‘does not make sense”.
Will Eric Holder and the US Department of Justice pay attention?
There are gaping holes in the official story of the Boston bombings.
We are asked to believe that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was identified by the Russian government as an extremist Dagestani or Chechen Islamist terrorist, and they were so concerned about it that in late 2010 they asked the US government to take action. At that time, the US and Russia did not normally have a security cooperation relationship over the Caucasus, particularly following the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008. For the Russians to ask the Americans for assistance, Tsarnaev must have been high on their list of worries.
In early 2011 the FBI interview Tsarnaev and trawl his papers and computers but apparently – remarkably for somebody allegedly radicalised by internet – the habitually paranoid FBI find nothing of concern.
So far, so weird. But now this gets utterly incredible. In 2012 Tamerlan Tsarnaev, who is of such concern to Russian security, is able to fly to Russia and pass through the airport security checks of the world’s most thoroughly and brutally efficient security services without being picked up.
He is then able to proceed to Dagestan – right at the heart of the world’s heaviest military occupation and the world’s most far reaching secret police surveillance – again without being intercepted, and he is able there to go through some form of terror training or further Islamist indoctrination. He then flies out again without any intervention by the Russian security services.
That is the official story and I have no doubt it did not happen. I know Russia and I know the Russian security services. Whatever else they may be, they are extremely well-equipped, experienced and efficient and embedded into a social fabric accustomed to cooperation with their mastery.
This scenario is simply impossible in the real world.
We have, by the official account, the involvement of the two Tsarnaev brothers, the FBI and the Russian security services. The FBI have a massive recent record of running agent provocateur operations to entrap gullible Muslims into terrorism.
The Russian security services have form on false flag Chechen bombings. Where the truth lies may be difficult to dig out. But the above official version is not true.
Supported videos include: