Identifying the Leads in the Underwear Bomber Crime
January 9, 2010 by mike.
The well-dressed man and the man in orange.
Who are they? Is anyone in the media talking about the other players in this crime or are we too busy arguing over how to prosecute the delusional patsy?
|
The Underwear Bomber: More to the story. Kurt Haskell describes The Well Dressed Man and the Man in Orange.
|
As we all know, on Christmas Day Umar
Farouk Abdulmutallab (Mutallab) boarded a plane in Amsterdam with a
makeshift bomb hidden in his underwear. Thanks to an alert passenger
and the technical difficulty involved, the bomb did not detonate, the
bomber caught himself on fire, the plane landed safely and the young
man, Mutallab , is in custody.
|
Michigan attorney Kurt Haskel witnessed
two important events, neither of which has been widely reported
although his testimony and collaborating testimony is available via
You Tube videos of local news coverage including Mlive (Michigan
live), NPR interviews,Fox News, Antiwar radio, and Alex Jones Prison
Planet.
Mr. Haskel reports that he and his wife were sitting on the floor in a crowed room playing cards when he witnessed the so called “sharp dressed man.” Haskel, who speaks carefully as an attorney, states that “While Mutallab was poorly dressed, his friend was dressed in an expensive suit”. He says the suited “Indian” man asked ticket agents whether a supposed “Sudanese refugee” (the terrorist, Mutallab) could board without a passport”. “The guy said, ‘He’s from Sudan and we do this all the time.’” Mr.. Haskel makes clear that this does not mean that Mutallab did not have a passport, only that the well dressed man attempted and evidently succeeded in getting him on a plane with out displaying a passport. Haskel has clarified that the Indian looking man could have been Pakistani or other, that he would not been able to discern nationality. Mr.. Haskel has confirmed that normal surveillance video would have been taken in this crowed departure area. This is the essence of Haskel’s testimony, until the flight landed in Detroit.
According to Haskell, upon landing the FBI prevented passengers from leaving the plane for 2 to 3 hours, and then they were moved to a crowded customs room. Haskel’s states that “During this time period, all of the passengers had their carry on bags with them. When the bomb sniffing dogs arrived, 1 dog found something in a carry on bag of a 30 ish Indian man. This is not the so called “Sharp Dressed” man. I will refer to this man as “The man in orange”. The man in orange, who stood some 20ft away from me the entire time until he was taken away, was immediately taken away to be searched and interrogated in a nearby room. At this time he was not handcuffed. When he emerged from the room, he was then handcuffed and taken away. At this time an FBI agent came up to the rest of the passengers and said the following (approximate quote) “You all are being moved to another area because this area is not safe. I am sure many of you saw what just happened (Referring to the man in orange) and are smart enough to read between the lines and figure it out.”
The story takes on importance when Haskel notes that “The FBI has, since we landed, insisted that only one man was arrested for the airliner attack (contradicting my account). However, several of my fellow passengers have come over the past few days, backed up my claim, and put pressure on FBI/Customs to tell the truth. Early today, I heard from two different reporters that a federal agency (FBI or Customs) was now admitting that another man has been held (and will be held indefinitely) since our flight landed for “immigration reasons.” Notice that this man was “being held” and not “arrested”, which was a cute semantic ploy by the FBI to stretch the truth and not lie.
Then, Customs agent Ron Smith went further, denying that the man arrested was on flight 253 at all.
|
|
|
 |
|
Ask the Right Question
January 9, 2010 by mike.
The underwear bomber is an interesting story. Here is the first thing that ought to be asked about this incident: how did this happen?
There is a lot of misdirection and political use of this incident for political gain, but the primary question should be how did this happen. A guy with no luggage, no passport, and paying cash for his ticket gets on an international flight. How does this happen? Who let this happen? Who worked to have this happen?
An effective approach to this mess would be to conduct the basic criminal investigation. Identify the conspirators, trace the crime back up the chain to the people who planned and facilitated this crime, then prosecute them, whoever they are.
|
The Real Terror Is at Home
|
| Passengers flying without luggage across continents should be laughed at. |
| Passengers paying for a plane ticket over $2,000 in CASH should have their backgrounds checked. |
| Passengers flying internationally without a passport should not be allowed on the plane. |
| The passenger who tried to set off a bomb on the Christmas Day flight achieved an amazing feat to get a seat on the plane and the most logical question should be asked and answered: |
|
It wasn’t the customer service representative at the counter. They would get fired for allowing someone like this onboard.
|
| It wasn’t the airline. They don’t need the bad publicity that scares people from wanting to fly. |
|
It wasn’t the Obama Administration. They needed this incident like they needed a hole in their heads. It provides mud for Fox News to sling at them.
|
| So who benefits?
The companies that make the machines that can detect the kind of underwear bomb this person used stand to make a profit. But they did not likely have the opportunity to get the man on the plane.
Who had the opportunity?
Someone who could pressure the intelligence and security leaders not to put the man on a “No Fly” list in spite of a call from the man’s father warning the CIA about his son’s “radicalization.”
Someone who could talk the airline to “make an exception” for the man.
Someone familiar with using people as scapegoats to cause a scene that would embarrass Obama.
It would be logical to form an idea about a suspect for this case. But while political pundits talk about the suspect on the plane, our logic is suspended because the real culprit is out of our reach, helping to misdirect the investigation.
The truth loses again because the real terror is our own right here at home.
|
|
| |
 |
|
