Lone Wolf My Ass...

I'm in an odd position...  I have spent my adult life making fun of conspiracy theorists, almost as a sport (as have my cohorts on this site - but hey, everybody is good at something), yet there are alarm bells going off here that I just can't ignore.

"Self-Radicalized", "Lone Wolfs" (I'll resist the urge to explain why making that term plural is asinine), these are terms I keep hearing bandied about in the press. Even Vice President Biden said at the memorial yesterday that, "These two Jihadi-knock offs..." Wherever you turn it would seem that the administration and the press are trying to make a concerted effort to tell the public, "nothing else to see hear, these were idiot kids who read one too many web sites, move along." Don't get me wrong, I 100% believe it was these brothers that bombed the marathon, my "suspicions" lay in it ending with them alone. The following four points represent my case that they did not:

1.) THE SAUDI
Something simply doesn't seem right with this Saudi they had in custody prior to focusing on the two brothers. This man was the origin of John King's (of CNN) infamous "dark skinned man in custody" debacle when he was live with Wolf Blitzer. In fact, it was widely disseminated that there was a Saudi, at General Mass Hospital, under protective custody, being questioned immediately following the bombings. Then all references to that man ceased (in the press) and the Chechnyan man hunt geared up. Homeland Security Director Janet Neapolitano later testified before congress that the Saudi in question was never a person of interest, never a a suspect, and was simply questioned as a material witness to the bombings. The problem is that he was put on a "No Fly" list the day after the questioning. She responded to that by saying this was a simple precaution to ensure that the witness stayed within the United States why they questioned him. However, no other "witness" was barred from flying, and the no-fly lisitng occurred the day after his questioning concluded. In addition, his neighbors were interviewed for five hours, and his home searched for nine hours which led to multiple trash bags of evidence being removed. That's not speculation, that was witnessed. Stranger still, supporting documentation has now arisen that he was put on a "212-3(B)" form.

Understand, this form is the HIGHEST designation for an "armed and dangerous terrorist" that the US government assigns to an individual. All relevant security agencies must each sign off on it and in this case the Watch Commander (his name is on the above form, "W/C Mayfield") of NCT (National Counter Terrorism Center) initiated the document. Stemming from a 1965 immigration law it was enhanced under the Patriot Act, and given strict parameters for its use, namely a panel must consent to a name being added. Neapolitano has yet to explain why this occurred to this Saudi. Even if you believe material witnesses are all put on no-fly lists (which I don't), and that all witnesses have their homes raided (which I don't), or that the feds were simply "profiling" (which I don't), this designation absolutely does not happen on accident or as a matter of course. You can read more about this story HERE and HERE. Both The Blaze and Brett Baier of Fox News are looking into the story, as well as seven different congressman, including Rep Peter King (R) NY, who is chair of the Homeland Security Committee. And you'll note, at the bottom (if you click to enlarge) there is mention of a "prior event." So, a 212-3(B) level individual, with a prior "event file", just happen to be on site at the bombing? As Gotham City's Commissioner Gordon once said to a young Lieutenant, "You're a detective, you're not allowed to believe in coincidences."

2.) THE LEADER
This mother (of the two bombers), is a wholly awful individual whom, among other statements, made it clear that now that her eldest son is dead she doesn't care if here younger son is killed. I heard her say it... can you imagine? I know certain cultures put emphasis on the first born male of the family, but lady, come on. At any rate, she has repeatedly claimed the FBI set her sons up, they didn't do it, the FBI has been tracking the older brother for years, etc, etc. But today I heard something very interesting. She said the FBI interviewed her and warned her that they were "concerned" about her son, that he wasn't just sympathetic to Jihdaists, but quote, "Was becoming a leader." Now you can chalk it up to her being nuts, but certainly all FBI notes on these interviews exist. And if that was their real concern this begs a question, leading who?

3.) THE "TURKS"
During an interview with CNN, which you can watch HERE, Cambridge auto mechanic Gilberto Junior (he lived across the street from the brothers and was repairing one of their vehicles) said that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the 19 year old brother) was wearing $900 shoes while visiting his repair shop just days after the bombings (note, the mechanic's friend noticed they were Louis Vatton shoes and asked how much he paid, Dzhokhar responded "$900"). Now understand, this interview was intended to get the story on the visit which occurred right after the bombings, and they got that. But what also happened, and what I don't think the CNN interviewer anticipated, was the little nuggets the auto mechanic also imparted, about the "friends" whom drove expensive cars and wore expensive clothing. Both the Boston Globe and the NY Times followed up with Junior (the mechanic), as he described an encounter he had with Dzhokhar regarding his friends once before. Dzhokhar told Junior that his friends (the ones dressed impeccably and driving expensive cars like "Porches and Range Rovers", according to Junior) were Turkish. Junior responded, "They don't look Turkish." Now what do you think of when you think "Turkish?" Perhaps a darker, Eastern looking individual? If they quote, "don't look Turkish", but clearly were foreigners, than - to me anyway - these guys sound like lock, stock and barrel Russians. That's my speculation, however. This is all made more significant when you understand (and this is fact, not speculation) that this family (including the brothers and the mother) were all, at various times over the past several years, on Food Stamps. The father, who moved back to Russia a year ago, has been interviewed (as you can imagine) by multiple sources and he claims he sent money to his sons whenever he could due to their financial difficulties. So how does a 19 year old kid, on welfare, afford $900 shoes? And by the way, the car Dzhokhar was picking up, was a 2007 Mercedes Benz. Something stinks - in terms of financing and aide - to high heaven here. Again I stress, I absolutely believe these two brothers are the bombers. But the idea that they were independent, and radicalized only by You Tube seems almost child like to me.

4.) THE TRIP
The elder brother (Tamerlan) traveled back to Chechnya from January to June of 2012. In national security circles there is a concept known as the "foreign fighter." You can read more about this concept and details of the Chechnya trip HERE. In essence this is when Westerners (natural born or naturalized immigrants) tune into Jihadist media to the point of traveling overseas with the intent of fighting in the active theaters of war there, whether it be the Near East, or North Africa. What tends to happen is they are trained and then convinced they can "serve Allah" better by going back "home" (to the US, Britain, etc) given they can more freely move about in their respective Western countries. In that light the 6 month trip to Russia seems to make more sense. Again, the lone wolf idea has holes - do they think he went to Chechnya to visit no one? To sit in solitude? To do an Australian style walk-about and get in touch with his Zen side? Ya, everybody knows that when you need some down time, some peaceful, quality time with yourself you go to sunny south Chechnya... right? That trip alone indicates outside help. I'd bet next month's rent that it was on this trip where Tamerlan learned to make these bombs. Zen-like peaceful reconnecting with one's self may not be an accurate description of the Russian vacation advertisements, but "bomb-making" IS a stop in the Chechnya tour guide handbook, if I'm not mistaken.

I have to once again stress, these guys, these terrorist Cechnyan brothers, did do the bombing. But in their claims that it was a "lone wolf" attack, and that these guys were "self-radicalized", or as the vice president contended "wannabe Jihadi's", both the press and administration are asking you to believe them, rather than your lying eyes. These aren't conspiracy sites. I'm giving you CNN, The NY Times, the Boston Globe, The Heritage Foundation, the mechanics own words, and yes, Glenn Beck's news orginization, The Blaze. But that site has the primary source documentation on the Saudi and no less than ten seperate, federal, cooberating sources. I loathe conspiracy theories, but boys and girls this lone wolf story just doesn't add up.

I also have to add...

I can't NOT give a nod, a heart-felt "Thank You!" and a huge "Job Well Done!" to the men and women of the Mass. State Police, the Boston Police Depart. and all the agencies that worked with them to investigate and apprehend the suspected bombers yesterday.

These men and women could easily have put their own lives FIRST and simply killed the man hiding in the boat that was KNOWN to have explosives, firearms and a raging ability to use either for his own gains.  Instead, they put themselves at risk AGAIN to ensure the man was captured alive, that no further harm could result from his actions, and that the neighborhoods and cities of the Boston area could sleep easier knowing the "bad guys" were off the streets.

God bless the MSPD, BPD and all the rest!

Hmmm...

I have to admit that, since the capture of the man labeled "terrorist #2", I haven't followed the story as exhaustively as I could have.  I know he was in hospital (Mass General, if I'm not mistaken, the same place his brother was pronounced DOA and the same place the cop he shot is recovering), and I have heard talking heads on the radio say he hasn't heard his Miranda rights.

What I haven't heard is anyone in a position of authority saying what Ryan is saying... that the are taking a gamble and treating the man (or labeling him) an "enemy combatant" so that he won't have the same access to civil and criminal rights as the rest of the nation' citizens.  There is a 48 hour window within the Miranda requirements to ensure that no greater threat or danger exists, just as there is a 24 hour window wherein the authorities can hold a citizen for only 24 hours before charging him/her with a crime or letting them walk away.

Citizen or not (and the irony of the 9-11 oath of citizenship is not beyond me), the man is in a heap of trouble.  Bombing charges aside, the man's capture and the circumstances surrounding it are MORE than enough to charge him with so that he can be held indefinitely.  There should be no NEED to utilize obscure or fringe elements of our justice code to keep him behind bars and answering questions.

The man is a US citizen.  End of story.  He deserves and has a right to expect each and every guaranteed freedom and protection our society promises any one of us.  If we allow ourselves to forget or overlook THAT fact, then I'm afraid the damage is already done and the principles by which this nation exists are no longer there.

Miranda? We don't need no stinking Miranda!

I am aghast at the joint statement released by Lindsey Graham and John McCain:

“Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent. It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now,” Graham and McCain said. “Under the Law of War we can hold this suspect as a potential enemy combatant not entitled to Miranda warnings or the appointment of counsel. Our goal at this critical juncture should be to gather intelligence and protect our nation from further attacks.”

You see, they didn't Mirandize him. And technically, they have legal backing at the point of immediate arrest at least. There is what's called a "public safety exception." It's based on a 1980 case in which a police officer subdued a rapist, noticed an empty gun holster on the suspect, and asked him where the gun was prior to Mirandizing. The cop found it in the alley at the direction of the suspect. Lawyers tried to get the gun tossed as evidence, but the SCOTUS ultimately ruled that in the event of an immediate safety threat, the Miranda could be read after the threat was neutralized. In other words, they do eventually have to Miranda this guy, but they're claiming a "threat" still exists in that he may have knowledge of additional sleeper cells, plots, etc, so questioning him pre Miranda after he wakes up in the hospital is legal. They're gambling. They're gambling that enough physical evidence exists to convict even if every self incriminating word he utters is tossed out. They're weighing that against the value of any information he will potentially offer up.

Now, here's my concern. I get, honestly I do, the technical legal gamble they're taking. Essentially it's a basic risk/reward decision. But this guy is a U.S. citizen. He was naturalized on 9/11/12. Ya, on 9/11. My concern is less with this legal "gamble" as I describe it, and more with McCain & Graham's statement. What did I warn about in my last post? Certain linguini-spined GOP'ers on Capital Hill willing to hand the POTUS (and by definition all future presidents) powers that we will not get back. Reread the statement above, that is EXACTLY what they're doing. They want the POTUS to have the authority and political cover to declare a U.S. citizen an enemy combatant, and thrown in GITMO. What's worse, if he is declared an enemy combatant then BY DEFINITION Graham and McCain have ceded that the U.S is a "battlefield", and battlefield rules apply, even to U.S. citizens. Thus the CIC's powers to operate domestically will match those in Iraq or Afghanistan. Is that alone not a "fundamental transformation" of our country? After all, if a U.S. citizen is an enemy combatant conducting operations on the battlefield of U.S. soil, than why would we deny the CIC the ability to conduct drone strikes in Boston, Chicago, L.A., or Austin? Why not military checkpoints? Why not courts martial assembled? Hell, why not turn the drum upside down, read the accusation, then hang em'? For the love of all that's holy, where is the Left on this? They should bare in mind, one day a Republican will reclaim the White House... do they really want the president's domestic powers to be limited only by battlefield rules?

Boston's Second Massacre

The story of the 8 year old boy is beyond heartbreaking. His sister lost a leg as well. Running to greet his father (a marathon runner) at the finish line and he's murdered... unbelievable. And another emotion has set in - FURY. I want the people responsible, dead.

I find the following troubling though... news has broken off and on today about a suspect being in custody. Finally, it was officially denied by the FBI. My concern is what I've been hearing from "conservative" circles. Jay Secculo is a former Bush DOJ lawyer and is now at the American Center for Law and Justice. He is the "go-to" guy for national security legalese on many of the top syndicated talk radio programs, as well as FOX. He, and in this case Hannitty, were today making the case that they fear - understand they are concerned this WILL happen - they fear that the Obama apparatus will insist on marandizing the culprit when they do locate him (or them). They went on to agree that "U.S. citizen or not, they deserve to be thrown into GITMO."

My question to the those on the Right whom would advocate such a thing is this - ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND? Let me get this straight. This is the guy, Obama, that you don't trust with a list of weapon owners, don't trust the implications of Obamacare, some of you don't even trust he was born here, but you trust THAT GUY with the power to arrest without Miranda, warrant, habeus corpus, or charge? And they kept saying, "In this instance they've made America a battlefield, so battlefield rules apply." WTF? So drone strikes on US soil, it turns out, ARE ok with you, right? I would argue that it is PRECISELY this type of incident when Miranda, etc are the most important, so as to restrain our baser desires. We don't devolve out of the Constitution when attacked. This is when we embrace and use the law to nail these people. It is this kind of troubling sentiment which leads to Japanese internment camps (take that and stick it in your craw left wingers, just incase you think I'm suddenly one of you, I am not). Understand that Holder's DOJ has issued "red flags" for profiling potential domestic terrorists in the past which includes descriptions (and I'm not paraphrasing) like, "Those who take the Bible literally." Or those whom are "Overly pro Constitutional." And the "Right Wing" media wants to give THAT justice department the power to arrest without Miranda nor charge?

Come on guys, Hannity, whoever you are, we are not the Left. We don't employ selective outrage, inconsistent arguments, nor emotional demagoguery to effect our argument. We're at the grown-ups table, they aren't, lets act like it. We don't selectively apply the Bill of Rights to citizens. I'm curious, what if an attack like this was found out to be a mob hit gone wrong? We all know there's no organized crime in Boston, right? Do mafioso get sent to GITMO? Mr. Hannity and Mr. Secculo, I sincerely hope that when they arrest these guys, they resist - if you know what I mean. However, I do not trust any government with the power to summarily detain or execute an American citizen. Especially not the current administration. Slow down, catch your breath, and think this through before you inspire certain linguini-spined GOP'ers on capital hill to hand the POTUS powers we will never get back.

Alright Crixus, don't lose your head...

I'm kidding, clearly I was the author of the more aggressive tone yesterday. Lets hope I fair better against "Titus."

Since we're clarifying, I have 4 items...

1.) Am I to understand that your recent point about New Deal's, I guess you'd call it "contribution", to WWII via the infrastructure in place to facilitate a swift rush to a war footing, is a "redeeming factoid", but not by any means a justification for calling New Deal a success? I'll let you have that so long as we agree that doesn't justify New Deal as a response to economic crisis. Also, I hasten to add, if that is indeed the case (infrastructure aiding the war effort is a "redeeming factoid") then certainly you give large credit to Hoover, for in his waining months (the last year in particular) he did an about face on government intervention, relief, public works, etc (it is the "Hoover Dam" after all). Politically it wouldn't have mattered if he handed out gold bricks, you simply don't get reelected after Black Friday, period. But in truth he became very protectionist and pro public works (I rate that a mistake, no question) near the end. So in fact to claim New Deal had any level of success (from beating the Imperial Japanese to beating the Great Depression) is to say that FDR and Hoover won those battles. Yes?

2.) I've heard you mention, as a justification of New Deal, the phrase "We haven't had a depression since." That is true. I'm curious though. Wasn't it something like 90% of New Deal that was either thrown out by the court or went away via sunset clauses? That's a number I heard Jambo toss out once and I think he's right. I've contended in the past that the single biggest offense FDR committed was causing rampant uncertainty in the market place because the majority of his legislation had 1 year expirations, thus had to be renewed annually. Not all were renewed, new 1 year laws were introduced, and businesses didn't know what the regulations and taxes governing their life were going to be year to year... THAT alone is a recipe for disaster. And as I've said, that was (in my opinion) a more disruptive approach (to recovery) than the policies themselves. So my "item" is this - what aspects of New Deal have contributed to there having not been a depression since? You certainly seem to believe there is a correlation. If the vast majority of New Deal either expired or was thrown out, what is that correlation which has protected us low these many years since New Deal expired? If you can not point to the specifics, even vagaries, of what that correlation is, shouldn't you cease using the "we haven't had a depression since" defense?

3.)You've read my posit on FDR's greatest offense - the way he governed via legislation was in 1 year increments, thus causing mass uncertainty. This is important to note if you agree that "uncertainty" is what most hinders private sector growth (via taxes, regulation, loan rates, etc, etc). You have also read FDR's "Second Bill of Rights." It is breathtakingly more radical a speech than anything Barack H. Obama would dare admit to. Holding both of these in consideration, let me ask you this as item #3: do you think that had FDR lived another 12 years lets say, or in other words remained president for a significant time post WWII, would America have had the 1950's boom? Before you answer I want you to think about what the implementation of that second bill of rights would have meant legislatively (every time I read it I still end with mouth gaping that an American president said this, especially in an address to the nation).

4.) In 1938 we had what was called the "Roosevelt Recession." The Republican congress insisted on cutting off the government breast milk of cheap, plentiful cash to the nation, and balance the budget. We almost immediately crashed. Now, I think we would both agree that an economy that is propped up by the government - rather than the other way around - is NOT a healthy one, and certainly not one which has "recovered." So wouldn't the natural conclusion be that propping up economies via massive government spending, works, etc, is at best a temporary morphine drip? In other words, it can provide immediate pain relief but is hardly the surgery required to fix the problem. And what's worse, if  for an extended period of time you only treat the symptom - pain - then you run the risk of addicting that patient to morphine, compounding the problem. This is such blisteringly clear logic to me that I MUST assume you agree. And if you do agree with this line of reasoning, weren't New Deal, or Obama's multi-stimulus bills, doomed to fail (at actually fixing the economy) from the start?

As an aside I think that a much stronger position for a "pro-New Deal" argument is to say, "No it didn't fix the economy, but it did provide direct relief. And if that direct relief means we recover in 10 years rather than 3, than I'd rather spend 10 years living with partial pain than 3 years living with dire pain." Essentially saying you are trading A for B. I would question the wisdom in such a trade, but at least that's a defensible position because you are knowingly making that swap. THEN we can have a legitimate debate about whether, as a nation, we would rather have a slow but less painful recovery, or a quick but extremely painful one (this of course assumes that you buy into the formula that low taxes and deregulation means economies can recover faster, but by definition requires a much lower level of direct relief for those suffering).

Know what never fails to make me smile?

It's the amazing fact that, no matter how much time passes between our New Deal posts... I'm just as pissed off and frustrated NOW as I was in 2008, and 2005, and 2003.

Ryan writes:

"But its a dangerous game for you to play given that, oh I don't know... INVENTING NUCLEAR BOMBS WAS NOT THE GOAL OF NEW DEAL. In other words New Deal failed in its' mandate, in its' promise, in its' intent - namely to mend the 20th century's greatest economic meltdown."

This is both the crux of our mutual disagreement and the basis of your argument.  Putting aside the latter (which we have both agreed cannot be proven true or false to either of our satisfaction), can we... just for a moment... look at the former?

It was never my (or Jambo's) intent to say that New Deal was a success because they helped invent the nuclear bomb.  I know you know this... yet you still imply it when you write things like this.  I have stated that New Deal succeeded in establishing a state-of-the-art infrastructure that allowed industrial, agricultural and scientific advances to push the US and Allied war effort to its ultimate goal.  Had TVA, Hoover Dam, the REA, the WPA, et al NOT accomplished what they did... the effort would still have been successful (at least I think so), but could have taken far longer than it did.

New Deal promised to fix the damage caused by the Crash of '29, and prevent its return in the future.  There has been no crash since, no depression since, and unemployment has never been that high again.  The national GDP, the inflation rate, the value of the dollar on the global market, indeed every economic indicator used, then and now, was back to pre-Crash levels by 1936... with the sole exception of unemployment which was still at more than 12% (and 8% higher than 1928).  Perhaps it would have risen back faster without New Deal... maybe ALL the indicators and indexes would have been back to normal and beyond by 1934, had Hoover gotten his win.  And perhaps there would still have been no depressions since.  I can't argue against that possibility.  And we CERTAINLY would have had a nuclear bomb... but not by 1945.  I am just as certain of that.  Nor would we have been out-producing the entire Axis war machine (BOTH theaters) in only 18 months after Pearl Harbor.

8 million jobs, a constantly growing economy from 1933 to 1941, and half a century of infrastructure that ensured American success in both peacetime and wartime.  Stability, security and support for the effort all say that the majority of Americans living through the era agree with me.

Please, bear in mind that I am NOT starting this again.  You misrepresented my position, and I wanted to clarify it.  Nothing more. I know New Deal was not started so we could develop a nuclear weapon.  Shockingly enough, that was never the goal of the War Department either... Oppie and Co. delivered a tool for them to use, but that tool was never the goal, any more than it was the goal of New Deal.