Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

Whatever Happened to the 'Underwear Bomber'?

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Whatever Happened to the 'Underwear Bomber'? Reply with quote

Attorney Kurt Haskell on the Underwear Bomber, 2 Years Later
Christmas Day Two Years Later and the Current State of the U.S.
by Kurt Haskell
It has now been two years since the Underwear Bomber attack. Once again, Lori and I find ourselves reflecting during the holidays about what happened on Flight 253. The attack, which comprised only two minutes of our lives, continues to shape our thoughts and beliefs. Although the criminal case has ended (except for sentencing which will happen in January 2012), the laws of Michigan allow for a two year period statute of limitations in order for the injured to bring a civil lawsuit. The time period to file such a lawsuit lapses tomorrow. Lori and I have had the plan to file a civil suit at the conclusion of the criminal case, which ended in October 2011.
The plan was for me to file the civil case on my own in order to keep her out of the inevitable attacks and aggravation that would come from such a suit. I have talked to several attorneys to represent me in such a case, but none of them were willing to take on the U.S. Government. I made the decision that I would represent myself in such a case. I have spent a great deal of time researching the suit and have worked on writing the complaint to initiate the case.
Even though I have spent a great deal of time researching the civil case, I don't feel that I have spent enough time on the case. I have come to the conclusion that becoming involved in such a case would be an overwhelming constraint on my time. As I am a very busy attorney, this would be time that I don't have to give up. I have been willing to give up my nights and weekends in order to work on the case to further expose evidence to prove that the U.S. Government was behind the staged attack.
Over the past few weeks, I have reconsidered my decision to file a civil case, and I will instead, begrudgingly, let the statute of limitations lapse. There are several reasons I have reconsidered my decision. The purpose of my civil lawsuit would not have been to obtain compensation, but would have been to obtain further evidence that the U.S. Government perpetrated the attack. Personally, I don't need any further evidence to prove the matter to myself. I have laid out my case in numerous prior postings on this blog. I have convinced the vast majority of people that have chosen to look at all of the evidence that I've presented. I don't believe I can convince anyone else.
Those that choose to deny the obvious will still not be convinced even if they watched the Schiphol airport video and audio showing what I have indicated. What then would be the purpose of my civil suit? I could possibly obtain further evidence, but that would only further convince those that already believe the U.S. Government is behind the attack. I also believe that obtaining such evidence would be nearly impossible. We now have a U.S. Government so drunk with its own power that it believes it is o.k. to kill U.S. citizens without a trial and/or to detain them forever without a hearing before a judge.
http://www.change.org/petitions/tell-obama-its-not-okay-to-kill-us-citizens-without-trial
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/15/americans-face-guantanamo-detention-obama
Would the U.S. Government willingly turn over evidence to me to show conclusively that it was behind the Underwear Bombing attack when it believes it can kill or detain American citizens indefinitely? Not a chance in hell. It is much more likely that the U.S. Government would declare me a person that "substantially aided" a terrorist under the new defense authorization bill and detain me indefinitely without a trial. However, that was not really a concern that led to my decision to not file a civil case. What did play a factor was the reaction, or lack thereof, of Americans in relation to the passing of this bill. Why are Americans not outraged and protesting by the millions in Washington over this law? It has just further confirmed to me that the vast majority of Americans just don't care what the U.S. Government does in relation to "terrorism".
I can't tell you how many times people have told me that they are o.k. to let the U.S. Government do whatever it wants to do against terrorists in order to make them safe. I have news for these people, if there are terrorists everywhere; there is nothing that can be done to make you entirely safe. I live very close to the largest population of Muslims in the U.S. If terrorism were as bad as the U.S. Government makes it out to be, car and suicide bombings would occur in my area on a regular basis. The fact that they never occur is very telling. It is my belief that the war on terror is nothing but a fraudulent U.S. Government creation designed, in part, to take away all of the rights of Americans and to further enrich and consolidate the power of those in control.
Our Constitutional rights are currently under attack and are being rapidly taken away. In case you haven't been paying attention, the definition of "terrorist" is slowly changing to one that means "a person that doesn't agree with the U.S. Government". When those that have given away all of their rights to combat terrorism suddenly discover that they are in fact terrorists, it will be too late. If I filed and won my lawsuit and proved that the U.S. Government staged the Underwear Bomber attack, would these people care? No they wouldn't. Would it stop the U.S. Government's assault on our Constitutional Rights? No it wouldn't. Would anyone do anything if I was labeled a terrorist and detained indefinitely without a trial? Not a chance.
These people comprise the vast majority of the American population. The corruption is so entrenched that 93 out of 100 senators voted for the recent law that allows for the indefinite detention of Americans without a trial. Can anyone think of any recent law that had that had such a vast majority of approval by both Democrats and Republicans? I can't think of any. The question I have is why would this bill obtain such vast approval? The answer to me is an obvious one. The U.S. as we know it is on the edge of complete collapse due to an out of control national debt. This collapse will lead to an economic collapse that will make the Great Depression look like a fun time. The National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility, an 18 member bi-partisan commission created by President Obama, recently indicated that the financial collapse will occur within two years.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/article/Trinity-speakers-say-U-S-must-share-sacrifice-2400021.php#ixzz1gWTEZC60
Obviously, the vast majority of senators that voted in support of the authorization to detain Americans indefinitely are worried that Americans may turn their anger from a financial collapse onto their political representatives. The approval of such a law was made in order to protect the politicians themselves from unruly mobs of Americans that are angry from the financial collapse. These Americans will be the new "terrorists". The new "terrorists" will find indefinite “housing” in FEMA camps that are being built throughout the U.S.
Read more - http://wakeupfromyourslumber.com/blog/andie531/attorney-kurt-haskell-underwear-bomber-2-years-later
Sun Jan 29, 2012 6:08 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: More on the 'Underwear Bomber' Reply with quote

Kurt Haskell
Infowars.com
Thursday, February 16, 2012

Every victim of a crime in Michigan is entitled to make a statement in open court regarding the impact of the crime on their life. The statement is limited to the victim’s physical, emotional and financial well being as it relates to the crime. Keep that in mind as you read my statement. Below is a copy of the victim impact statement I gave today at the Underwear Bomber sentencing hearing. When reading my statement, keep in mind that I am a practicing attorney in the State of Michigan. In addition, I regularly practice in the Court the hearings are taking place at and therefore, I am somewhat limited as to what I can say. We were limited to 5 minutes each.

I wish to thank the Court for allowing me these 5 minutes to make my statement. My references to the government in this statement refer to the Federal Government excluding this Court and the prosecution. On Christmas Day 2009, my wife and I were returning from an African safari and had a connecting flight through Amsterdam. As we waited for our flight, we sat on the floor next to the boarding gate. What I witnessed while sitting there and subsequent events have changed my life forever. While I sat there, I witnessed Umar dressed in jeans and a white t-shirt, being escorted around security by a man in a tan suit who spoke perfect American English and who aided Umar in boarding without a passport. The airline gate worker initially refused Umar boarding until the man in the tan suit intervened. The event meant nothing to me at the time. Little did I know that Umar would try to kill me a few hours later as our flight approached Detroit. The final 10 minutes of our flight after the attack were the worst minutes of my life. During those 10 minutes I sat paralyzed in fear. Unfortunately, what happened next has had an even greater impact on my life and has saddened me further.

When we landed, I was shocked that our plane taxied up to the gate. I was further shocked that we were forced to sit on the plane for 20 minutes with powder from the so called bomb all over the cabin. The officers that boarded the plane did nothing to ensure our safety and did not check for accomplices or other explosive devices. Several passengers trampled through parts of the bomb as they exited the plane. We were then taken into the terminal with our unchecked carry on bags. Again, there was no concern for our safety even though Umar told the officers that there was another bomb on board as he exited the plane. I wondered why nobody was concerned about our safety, accomplices or other bombs and the lack of concern worried me greatly. I immediately told the FBI my story in order to help catch the accomplice I had seen in Amsterdam. It soon became obvious that the FBI wasn’t interested in what I had to say, which upset me further. For one month the government refused to admit the existence of the man in the tan suit before changing course and admitting his existence in an ABC News article on January 22, 2010. That was the last time the government talked about this man. The video that would prove the truth of my account has never been released. I continue to be emotionally upset that the video has not been released. The Dutch police, meanwhile, in this article (show article), also confirmed that Umar did not show his passport in Amsterdam which also meant that he didn’t go through security as both are in the same line in Amsterdam. It upsets me that the government refuses to admit this fact.

I became further saddened from this case, when Patrick Kennedy of the State Department during Congressional hearings, admitted that Umar was a known terrorist, was being followed, and the U.S. allowed him into the U.S. so that it could catch Umar’s accomplices. I was once again shocked and saddened when Michael Leiter of the National Counter terrorism Center admitted during these same hearings that intentionally letting terrorists into the U.S. was a frequent practice of the U.S. Government. I cannot fully explain my sadness, disappointment and fear when I realized that my government allowed an attack on me intentionally.

During this time, I questioned if my country intentionally put a known terrorist onto my flight with a live bomb. I had many sleepless nights over this issue. My answer came shortly thereafter. In late 2010, the FBI admitted to giving out intentionally defective bombs to the Portland Christmas Tree Bomber,the Wrigley Field Bomber and several others. Further, Mr. Chambers was quoted in the Free Press on January 11, 2011 when he indicated that the government’s own explosives experts had indicated that Umar’s bomb was impossibly defective. I wondered how that could be. Certainly, I thought, Al Qaeda wouldn’t go through all of the trouble to plan such an attack only to provide the terrorist with an impossibly defective bomb.

I attended nearly all of the pretrial hearings. At the hearing on January 28, 2011, I was greatly disappointed by the prosecution’s request to block evidence from Mr. Chambers “as it could then be able to be obtained by third parties, who could use it in a civil suit against the government”. It really bothered me that the government apparently was admitting to wrongdoing of some kind as it admitted that it was concerned it would be sued. It further upset me to know that the government was putting its own interests ahead of those of the passengers.
When I attended the jury selection hearings, I questioned why versions of the same two questions kept coming up, those being:

1. Do you think you’ll be able to tell whether something is actually a bomb? and
 2. Do you realize that sometimes the media doesn’t always tell the truth?

I continued to be greatly saddened at this point as I felt the truth continued to be hidden.

When Umar listed me as his only witness, I was happy to testify, not on his behalf, but on behalf of the truth. I never expected to testify, as my eyewitness account would have been too damaging to the myth that the government and media are putting forward. A mere 5 days after I was announced as a witness, there was an inexplicable guilty plea which exasperated me as I no longer would be testifying.

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.

The effect this matter has had on my life has been astounding and due to this case, I will never trust the government in any matter, ever.

In regards to sentencing, nothing I’ve said excuses the fact that Umar tried to kill me. He has waived his valid claim to the entrapment defense. Umar, you are not a great Muslim martyr, you are merely a “Patsy”. I ask the court to impose the mandatory sentence.

http://www.infowars.com/breaking-kurt-haskell-exposes-government-false-flag-operation-during-underwear-bomber-sentencing/
Sat Feb 18, 2012 10:16 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Questions surround gov actions in 'underwear bomber' case Reply with quote

Questions surround government’s actions in “underwear” bomber case
- Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Commonly referenced as the “underwear bomber” or the “Christmas Day bomber,” Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was sentenced to life in prison last week by U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds in a Michigan court. He unexpectedly pleaded guilty on October 12, 2011 (day two of his trial) to eight felony counts, including attempted murder and attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction, related to reported attempt to detonate an explosive hidden in his underwear while aboard Northwest Airlines flight 253 flying from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day, 2009. There were 279 passengers and 11 crewmembers aboard that flight.

While it is indisputable that Islamic terrorists indeed exist and target the West, there are a number of things very wrong with the official account of this event. The problems begin well before Abdulmutallab ever stepped foot aboard flight 253 and continue through today. Moreover, the fact-a-phobic media appears to have been neutered with regard to reporting on this very questionable scenario.

Bomber allowed to board plane with explosives

As ugly and conspiratorial as it sounds, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was permitted to board flight 253 with explosives despite being identified as a terrorist.

You need not take our word for it, however. Undersecretary of Management at the U.S. State Department, Patrick F. Kennedy, disclosed this tidbit during a January 27, 2010 hearing of the House Committee on Homeland Security.

Appearing uncomfortable throughout the questioning, Kennedy testified that Abdulmutallab appeared on a terrorist watch list before and on the day of the attempted bombing. Kennedy’s testimony seemed stained and contradictory at times, but he made it clear that Abdulmutallab was permitted to proceed on board the flight at the direction of a person and agency that he would reveal only in camera, or privately to the committee.

The reason Abdulmutallab and the bomb were permitted aboard an airliner carrying 290 people has strained the credulity of even the most hardened skeptics; he was under surveillance and our intelligence agencies were attempting to identify the members of a larger plot by having “eyes on him.” It certainly does not take an investigator to refute the logic of that account, considering the lives of 290 men, women and children aboard flight 253 and others on the ground were placed in jeopardy. Even if that were remotely the case, how would you feel if your wife, husband, son or daughter were aboard that aircraft?
Abdulmutallab assisted at Amsterdam airport

According to multiple witnesses, the would-be bomber was actually assisted in boarding the now infamous flight. Kurt Haskell, perhaps the most well known witness who was also aboard flight 253 with his wife, remained steadfast in his account that a yet unidentified well-dressed man, possibly of Indian descent, assisted the bomber at the airport when he appeared to be having problems with security.

Since the events of Christmas Day 2009, Mr. Haskell has provided first-hand accounts to Alex Jones of Infowars and Prison Planet TV. The information provided by Mr. Haskell is consistent with information we received from an inside source working for a federal intelligence agency familiar with this incident. According to our source, airport security officials were told to “stand down” by a contact within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and permit Abdulmutallab to board the aircraft.

Perhaps this would explain why Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to testify in front of House Committee members in January 2010 despite being asked to do so by the committee.
Inexplicable events in Detroit

In an extreme departure from normal protocol, flight 253 taxied to the airport gate despite the presence of a bomb onboard. Additionally, the passengers of the flight were forced to remain on the plane despite Abdulmutallab’s statements that there was a second bomb on the aircraft, and without knowing whether the bomber had accomplices.

When the passengers were finally escorted from the plane, the manner of their exit actually caused some to step on parts of the bomb. Additional accounts from Mr. Haskell and other passengers provide interesting and critical insight into either incredible incompetence or some level of foreknowledge about the entire scenario.
Abdulmutallab’s about-face

The oddities surrounding this incident and Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab extended into federal court. The would-be bomber pleaded not guilty to the charges, yet inexplicably reversed his decision a mere two days before potentially mitigating or perhaps even exculpatory evidence could be heard in court. It was a move that should have baffled his defense team and anyone paying attention to this case.

It is less baffling when combined with all other unanswered questions pertaining to this case are viewed in totality. His move otherwise buried possible evidence of government complicity, or at least incompetence, from public purview.
Follow the money?

When the wheels of flight 253 touched down, there were only 40 full body scanners in place at 19 airports in the U.S. Today, these scanners are in place or scheduled to be deployed throughout the U.S., and not just in airports.

As we previously reported, former DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff and co-author of the U.S. Patriot Act took to the airwaves to lobby for the placement of the nuclear scanners at all airports, using flight 253 as the reason.

In the wake of his flurry of media appearances suggesting that full body scanners would have likely caught Abdulmutallab, an article critical of Chertoff appeared in the January 1, 2010 edition of The Washington Post. The former DHS secretary was criticized for “using his former government credentials to advocate for a product that benefits his clients.”

It was disclosed that Chertoff’s security consulting agency included a client that manufactures the controversial scanners. That client is Rapiscan Systems, the leading provider of the scanners to the TSA and numerous other airports across the world.

Rapiscan is a wholly owned subsidiary of OSI Systems, Inc., a worldwide company based in California that develops and markets security and inspection systems. It is one of a handful of such companies trying to corner the market on security hardware for the air transportation industry – a market estimated to be worth $300 billion in the United States alone.

OSI Systems, Inc. made headlines last week when the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey awarded them a $15 million contract to install their cargo scanners at the new World Trade Center. Through 2009, however, OSI Systems, Inc. was posting revenue losses. Starting in 2010, after the “failed bombing attempt,” the company has posted continuous quarterly gains.

Investigation disclosed that some of the full body scanners were purchased with stimulus money. Also, it was uncovered that the infamous George Soros held nearly 12,000 shares of stock in the parent company.
No questions asked

Despite all of the oddities surrounding Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab (and there are many more than listed here), the Department of Homeland Security and all of the agencies people involved, not one of our elected officials has appeared to have any desire to disclose the truth of flight 253. Additionally, the corporate media has been AWOL to the point of complicity.

It’s time for Americans to demand accountability - or resignations.

The oddities of Flight 253 and Abdulmutallab will be the topic discussed on tonight’s edition of The Hagmann & Hagmann Report, as broadcast on live video via the Liberty Broadcasting Network.
Doug Hagmann & Joseph Hagmann
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/44761
Wed Feb 22, 2012 9:46 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker