Saturday, April 27, 2013

Whose Side Are They On?

Is our federal government schizophrenic (rhetorical question)?

The surviving Boston Marathon bomber was giving information freely to FBI and anti-terrorism investigators about his and his brother's actions concerning the attack on the Boston Marathon and potential future attacks, one of which, apparently, was to travel to New York City with the rest of their explosive devices (at least one of which was another pressure-cooker bomb) and detonate them at Times Square.

I say he was giving information freely. That was until the arrival of a Magistrate Judge and an official from the U.S. Attorney's Office (unannounced) to Mirandize the SOB.

Let me get this straight.  The U.S. Attorney's Office is a sub-section of the Justice Department, which is headed by Attorney General Eric Holder.  The same Justice Department that invoked the "public safety exception" to Miranda to facilitate information gathering and the intelligence debriefing of the suspect.  Yet, after only 16 hours (there is no official time limit on the exception, but many had expected it to be as long as 30 days) this judge shows up, with an administration official in tow, and effectively shuts down the interrogation at the hospital, bringing the investigation to a temporary halt and infuriating the FBI agents in charge.  Predictably, Tsarnaev has quit cooperating and has refused to answer any further questions.

I'll admit to being a little torn on the question of Miranda for this particular individual.  On the one hand, he is a legalized American citizen.  As such he is legally entitled to the same Constitutional protections afforded to natural-born citizens.  Ironically, he took his Oath of Citizenship on Sept. 11th.  On the other, a terrorist bombing is rightly considered an Act of War, which in my mind should disqualify any consideration of Constitutional protections for the perpetrators.

The drama doesn't end with this particular judge (we'll come back to her in a moment).  It's been revealed that the Tsarnaev brothers, along with their parents, were on welfare for several years.  In effect, the taxpayers, themselves funded the terrorism perpetrated on them.  Any attempt to get information concerning the extent and amount of public assistance has been stonewalled by Massachusetts Governor Duval Patrick, citing their "right to privacy".  Your right to privacy can be violated for cause, government employees' and officials' pay is open to public view, the pay of Senators and Congressmen is available online, but the privacy of a terrorist receiving public welfare benefits (and most likely tuition for the college courses he was failing) is, apparently, sacrosanct.  What is the Governor hiding?  He refused to divulge information to Boston papers, but the fact that the Tsarnaevs were receiving welfare payments was given to the New York Times?  There are rumors that Gov. Patrick is considering a run for President in 2016 and wants to keep in the good graces of the Times in order to gain their endorsement.

So, why all this high level activity to shield a terrorist from scrutiny?  Is he one of "my people" that AG Holder once is reported to have said he would not prosecute (this was in reference to the voter intimidation case in Philadelphia in 2010)?  If so, why did his office invoke the exception to Miranda in the first place?  Is it because they didn't anticipate the younger Tsarnaev's being so cooperative with his interrogators and were nervous about what he might say?  Maybe Obama and Holder were concerned with how the prosecution of a Muslim terrorist, sans full Constitutional rights, would be perceived in the Middle East?  Any way you look at it, it smacks of political correctness and bias towards Muslims and Islamic extremists.  Which brings us back to the judge who took it upon herself to bring everything to a screeching halt.

District Court Judge Marianne Bowler is her name.  She arrived at the hospital room to preside over Tsarnaev's hearing and to read him his rights.  Two officials with knowledge of the FBI briefing on Capitol Hill said the FBI was against stopping the investigators’ questioning and was stunned that the judge, Justice Department prosecutors and public defenders showed up, feeling valuable intelligence may have been sacrificed as a result.

Judge Bowler has some interesting tidbits in her background linking her with the Muslim Brotherhood and other pro-Muslim organizations.  She describes herself as "a dedicated international traveler".  To what is she so "dedicated"?  She has, apparently in her capacity as a member of the International Judicial Relations Committee of the Judicial Conference of the United States, visited several Muslim countries, where she spoke in front of dignitaries and officials, being the first female granted such status to speak in the country of Kuwait, also speaking to audiences in Egypt and the United Arab Emirates.  Her speaking engagement in Egypt was "post Morsi", meaning that she had to receive the permission of the Muslim Brotherhood in order to appear.  Other than a visit to the U.S. Embassy in Belgrade, these make up the extent of her official overseas visits.  All in Muslim countries.  Has she, like John Brennan, been greatly influenced by her exposure to Muslim culture?

All of this high level interference with the investigation, along with the insistence that it be prosecuted according to civil criminal statute, as opposed to military tribunal with Tsarnaev being treated as an "enemy combatant" seems to me to be carefully calculated to make the prosecution of the case as difficult and lengthy as possible.  The question is, Why?  Why would American government officials go out of their way to shelter a terrorist?  Whose side are they on?


From,  Remember the Arab national that was initially apprehended running away from the scene immediately after the blast by an alert bystander?  Whatever happened to him?  According to Glenn Beck, he has gone from “person of interest, to witness, to victim, to nobody.”  How and why was this individual so quickly dismissed, when the suspect was known to security officials as a risk and was on the DHS terrorist watch list and no-fly list?   The FBI has reportedly said that they believe there is yet a 3rd suspect at large, yet there's almost no mention of this in the mainstream media or from the administration.

No comments:

Post a Comment