Friday, May 3, 2013
Spin doctors manipulate news
to guard prez, spooks on terror
Though we can't definitively rule out an "inside job" in the Boston bombings, we can reasonably infer that the strange silence of the press on important angles of the story is intended to prevent the Obama administration and security agencies from looking bad in the eyes of the American people.
For example, suppose the initial suspect, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, was maybe an intelligence operative. That would explain how he got on a no-fly list as someone with "derogatory" information before the blasts and why he was spirited from public view once he was let go. But to admit the Saudi had terror ties would be, officials might well think, too confusing to the public and raise all sorts of political trouble for both Obama and the security apparatus.
Never fear, the press compliantly fails to do a thorough job examining not only Glenn Beck's document, but Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano's shifting story and obvious attempts to mislead, behavior which itself tends to validate Beck's document.
So why would the government go to "no comment" mode as to who hired the military-style security firm, Craft International, to assist police at the marathon, why would the media act like getting such an obvious detail is only something for a "conspiracy theorist" reporter?
Again, a likely reason is that the security-media complex doesn't want to feed conspiracy theories; administration politicos, spooks and media managers worry that ANY coverage of Craft will help stoke suspicion and destabilize "Our Thing."
Recall that the U.S. media in the recent past have obeyed CIA news controls for political reasons. And, Obama's current CIA chief, John Brennan, was the White House point man for scamming the public about the Benghazi terror attack. And let us also recollect that President Obama's position -- stated well before the investigation's conclusion -- is that his White House and the security forces couldn't have been prepared for the Boston atrocity because the brothers Tsarnaev were "self-radicalized," or that is, Obama is asserting that there was no international conspiracy despite various terrorism and intelligence connections to the elder brother, Tamerlan.
And here too we see much of the media playing down, and failing to do much followup of, of disclosures of FBI and CIA warnings.
to guard prez, spooks on terror
Though we can't definitively rule out an "inside job" in the Boston bombings, we can reasonably infer that the strange silence of the press on important angles of the story is intended to prevent the Obama administration and security agencies from looking bad in the eyes of the American people.
For example, suppose the initial suspect, Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi, was maybe an intelligence operative. That would explain how he got on a no-fly list as someone with "derogatory" information before the blasts and why he was spirited from public view once he was let go. But to admit the Saudi had terror ties would be, officials might well think, too confusing to the public and raise all sorts of political trouble for both Obama and the security apparatus.
Never fear, the press compliantly fails to do a thorough job examining not only Glenn Beck's document, but Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano's shifting story and obvious attempts to mislead, behavior which itself tends to validate Beck's document.
So why would the government go to "no comment" mode as to who hired the military-style security firm, Craft International, to assist police at the marathon, why would the media act like getting such an obvious detail is only something for a "conspiracy theorist" reporter?
Again, a likely reason is that the security-media complex doesn't want to feed conspiracy theories; administration politicos, spooks and media managers worry that ANY coverage of Craft will help stoke suspicion and destabilize "Our Thing."
Recall that the U.S. media in the recent past have obeyed CIA news controls for political reasons. And, Obama's current CIA chief, John Brennan, was the White House point man for scamming the public about the Benghazi terror attack. And let us also recollect that President Obama's position -- stated well before the investigation's conclusion -- is that his White House and the security forces couldn't have been prepared for the Boston atrocity because the brothers Tsarnaev were "self-radicalized," or that is, Obama is asserting that there was no international conspiracy despite various terrorism and intelligence connections to the elder brother, Tamerlan.
And here too we see much of the media playing down, and failing to do much followup of, of disclosures of FBI and CIA warnings.
Why will no one say who hired
Craft Int'l for marathon security?
Two reporters confirm official stonewall treatment
David Lindorff, a veteran investigative reporter, has an excellent piece on this matter.
http://thiscantbehappening.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.thecraft.com/craft_
http://www.thecraft.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
From Ian Henshall:
Investigative journalist David Southwell told [a meeting in England] that the monitoring of Boston police radio on the evening of the attacks showed that there were reports of other bombs/rucksacks found. He said it was suspicious that of the 14 authorities he contacted, none would go on the record and deny the Craft International operatives photographed were working at the bombing scene, but none of them would comment on who they were reporting to it or which agency had hired the company whose operatives were carrying black rucksacks similar to those used in the bomb attacks.
Tom Secker, the documentary film maker, and Ian Henshall, author of 911 The New Evidence, agreed with Southwell that the U.S. authorities need to explain many apparent contradictions, to show the picture of the suspects walking away without their alleged bombs and to explain why photos showed one suspect with a white, not a black rucksack.
Craft Int'l for marathon security?
Two reporters confirm official stonewall treatment
David Lindorff, a veteran investigative reporter, has an excellent piece on this matter.
http://thiscantbehappening.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
http://www.thecraft.com/craft_
http://www.thecraft.com/
https://www.facebook.com/
From Ian Henshall:
Investigative journalist David Southwell told [a meeting in England] that the monitoring of Boston police radio on the evening of the attacks showed that there were reports of other bombs/rucksacks found. He said it was suspicious that of the 14 authorities he contacted, none would go on the record and deny the Craft International operatives photographed were working at the bombing scene, but none of them would comment on who they were reporting to it or which agency had hired the company whose operatives were carrying black rucksacks similar to those used in the bomb attacks.
Tom Secker, the documentary film maker, and Ian Henshall, author of 911 The New Evidence, agreed with Southwell that the U.S. authorities need to explain many apparent contradictions, to show the picture of the suspects walking away without their alleged bombs and to explain why photos showed one suspect with a white, not a black rucksack.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
News organizations kept silent
about Saudi role in drone strikes
As media critic Cliff Kincaid points out, news organizations once had a deal to keep a CIA drone base's location secret. The news organizations not only concealed the base's exact location, but also the name of the country in which it was located: Saudi Arabia. Is this sort of "informal arrangement among several news organizations" to avoid news coverage also at play in the case of the Saudi national arrested, but then freed, in the Boston bombings? Kincaid wonders.
The Post blew the whistle on the Saudi role only once it learned that a competitor was about to break the CIA news embargo, the Post has reported.
"The Washington Post had refrained from disclosing the specific location at the request of the administration, which cited concern that exposing the facility would undermine operations against an al-Qaeda affiliate regarded as the network’s most potent threat to the United States, as well as potentially damage counterterrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia.
"The Post learned Tuesday night that another news organization was planning to reveal the location of the base, effectively ending an informal arrangement among several news organizations that had been aware of the location for more than a year."
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/01/no-media-interest-in-saudi-person-of-interest/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/brennan-nomination-opens-obama-to-criticism-on-secret-targeted-killings/2013/02/05/8f3c94f0-6fb0-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_print.html
about Saudi role in drone strikes
As media critic Cliff Kincaid points out, news organizations once had a deal to keep a CIA drone base's location secret. The news organizations not only concealed the base's exact location, but also the name of the country in which it was located: Saudi Arabia. Is this sort of "informal arrangement among several news organizations" to avoid news coverage also at play in the case of the Saudi national arrested, but then freed, in the Boston bombings? Kincaid wonders.
The Post blew the whistle on the Saudi role only once it learned that a competitor was about to break the CIA news embargo, the Post has reported.
"The Washington Post had refrained from disclosing the specific location at the request of the administration, which cited concern that exposing the facility would undermine operations against an al-Qaeda affiliate regarded as the network’s most potent threat to the United States, as well as potentially damage counterterrorism collaboration with Saudi Arabia.
"The Post learned Tuesday night that another news organization was planning to reveal the location of the base, effectively ending an informal arrangement among several news organizations that had been aware of the location for more than a year."
http://www.worldtribune.com/2013/05/01/no-media-interest-in-saudi-person-of-interest/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/brennan-nomination-opens-obama-to-criticism-on-secret-targeted-killings/2013/02/05/8f3c94f0-6fb0-11e2-8b8d-e0b59a1b8e2a_print.html
Wednesday, May 1, 2013
Saudi's arrest in Boston
periled touchy alliance
One would have expected that at least some of the more militant pro-Israel press pundits would have seized on the controversial document pegging the Saudi arrested in Boston as a previously identified alien not permitted to fly on grounds of terrorist associations.
But the so-called "Israel lobby" in the media -- which even the New York Times agrees is a very powerful political force -- has remained mute. The near-unanimity of this decision isn't about Glenn Beck's credibility. It is about the fact that Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu wants Washington completely focused on the curbing or the elimination of Iran's nuclear arms potential. This requires Saudi Arabia, which opposes Iran obtaining atomic weapons, to stay diplomatically close to Washington.
Though the holding of Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi on terrorism charges might not have upset that applecart, it easily could have, offending Saudi Arabia as domestic political pressure forced the scuttling of a plan to let the Saudis participate in a Homeland Security "trusted flyer" program.
http://online.wsj.com/article/
This pro-Israel writer didn't get the message, showing that the "Israel lobby" isn't altogether monolithic.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/plot-thickens-in-saudi-national-case/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=plot-thickens-in-saudi-national-case
periled touchy alliance
One would have expected that at least some of the more militant pro-Israel press pundits would have seized on the controversial document pegging the Saudi arrested in Boston as a previously identified alien not permitted to fly on grounds of terrorist associations.
But the so-called "Israel lobby" in the media -- which even the New York Times agrees is a very powerful political force -- has remained mute. The near-unanimity of this decision isn't about Glenn Beck's credibility. It is about the fact that Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu wants Washington completely focused on the curbing or the elimination of Iran's nuclear arms potential. This requires Saudi Arabia, which opposes Iran obtaining atomic weapons, to stay diplomatically close to Washington.
Though the holding of Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi on terrorism charges might not have upset that applecart, it easily could have, offending Saudi Arabia as domestic political pressure forced the scuttling of a plan to let the Saudis participate in a Homeland Security "trusted flyer" program.
http://online.wsj.com/article/
This pro-Israel writer didn't get the message, showing that the "Israel lobby" isn't altogether monolithic.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/arnold-ahlert/plot-thickens-in-saudi-national-case/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=plot-thickens-in-saudi-national-case
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Did 'realpolitik' dictate clearing
of Saudi in Boston explosions?
As Secretary of State John Kerry pointed out recently, the United States is working hand in glove with Saudi Arabia in contending with situations in Syria and Iran and in curbing activities of violent extremists. That helps explain why the Obama administration was eager to put Saudi Arabia on Homeland Security's "trusted flyer" program.
Surely, the holding of a Saudi as a terror suspect in the Boston bombings would have derailed the State Department's diplomatic aspirations.
That at least is a plausible hypothesis as to why Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano played the artful dodger on Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi's no-fly status prior to the bombings.
U.S. needs Saudi aid on Syria, Iran
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2013/03/20130304143647.html#axzz2RyZ7NbaY
Homeland Security was set to ease Saudi flights
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/20/decision-to-extend-trusted-traveler-program-to-saudi-scrutinized/
The uproar that would have greeted Alharbi being held for further questioning is demonstrated by this comment found via Google: "The Investigative Project on Terrorism revealed on March 20, 2013 that Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), recently so focused on helping illegal immigrants with amnesty legislation instead of defense from terrorism, planned to add Saudi Arabia to the “Trusted Traveler” program. This news rose the ire of lawmakers like Rep. Frank Wolf., R-Va., who pointed out, 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked airliners and killed nearly 3,000 people were from Saudi Arabia."
Saudi skeptical on U.S. oil boom
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/30/us-usa-saudi-naimi-idUSBRE93T0PW20130430
Napolitano's disinformation is an issue
I again note that I have no idea whether Alharbi was involved. But I do know that the document provided by Glenn Beck on Alharbi cannot be waved off, and that Napolitano was purveying clever propaganda intended to mislead the public concerning that document.
of Saudi in Boston explosions?
As Secretary of State John Kerry pointed out recently, the United States is working hand in glove with Saudi Arabia in contending with situations in Syria and Iran and in curbing activities of violent extremists. That helps explain why the Obama administration was eager to put Saudi Arabia on Homeland Security's "trusted flyer" program.
Surely, the holding of a Saudi as a terror suspect in the Boston bombings would have derailed the State Department's diplomatic aspirations.
That at least is a plausible hypothesis as to why Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano played the artful dodger on Abdul Rahman Ali Al-Harbi's no-fly status prior to the bombings.
U.S. needs Saudi aid on Syria, Iran
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/article/2013/03/20130304143647.html#axzz2RyZ7NbaY
Homeland Security was set to ease Saudi flights
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/20/decision-to-extend-trusted-traveler-program-to-saudi-scrutinized/
The uproar that would have greeted Alharbi being held for further questioning is demonstrated by this comment found via Google: "The Investigative Project on Terrorism revealed on March 20, 2013 that Obama’s Department of Homeland Security (DHS), recently so focused on helping illegal immigrants with amnesty legislation instead of defense from terrorism, planned to add Saudi Arabia to the “Trusted Traveler” program. This news rose the ire of lawmakers like Rep. Frank Wolf., R-Va., who pointed out, 15 of the 19 terrorists who hijacked airliners and killed nearly 3,000 people were from Saudi Arabia."
Saudi skeptical on U.S. oil boom
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/30/us-usa-saudi-naimi-idUSBRE93T0PW20130430
Napolitano's disinformation is an issue
I again note that I have no idea whether Alharbi was involved. But I do know that the document provided by Glenn Beck on Alharbi cannot be waved off, and that Napolitano was purveying clever propaganda intended to mislead the public concerning that document.
Amazing blunder
drowns 'Signal'
On Nate Silver's book
The signal and the noise: why so many predictions fail -- but some don't
(Penguin 2012)
Nate Silver plainly believes knowledge is power. People who use statistical methods without incorporating relevant information tend to be less accurate at prediction than those who use both, he says.
This finding is born out by baseball forecasters, he writes. Though his own statistical method was fairly good, he concedes scouts spotted potential in players that his method did not. But on the other hand, scouts tended to overlook potential disclosed by statistics. Which is why, Silver says, teams these days combine statistical methods with scouting reports when choosing players.
Silver, a reformed internet poker shark, gives his general readers a taste of Bayesian probability, without going into much depth on the mathematics or the controversy concerning that approach.
Much of his book is given over to examples of how statistical forecasters often mistake signal for noise. He praises the improvement in weather forecasts but damns economic modeling.
And, after a well-researched look at the global warming debate, we discover: Silver is also an expert on terrorism.
He spoke with Donald Rumsfeld and read a book Rumsfeld recommended that explained why America was unprepared for the Pearl Harbor attack, which essentially said that though all the dots were there, they were improperly connected. Next, we come to how the attacks of 9/11 could have caught America off-guard. Only the intellectually lazy would think of conspiracy. Statistics confirm that failure to connect dots could easily be a true explanation.
Silver has committed the very blunder he so earnestly warns about earlier in his book: Failure to incorporate important information. He seems to have decided that because a probabilistic explanation can be used to endorse the official line, it's obvious that no further work need be done.
And he hasn't done that work.
In a seemingly well-researched chapter on global warming, Silver carefully examines the controversy. Not so for 9/11. Only one side of the controversy -- the government's -- is considered. Statistics, uninformed by relevant information establishing coverup, is then used to rationalize the government's claims. Most of his information concerning 9/11 appears to have come from the 9/11 commission report; Silver doesn't seem to realize that the commission's co-chairmen and its general counsel have distanced themselves from the report because of the CIA's concealment of evidence.
Why ruin an otherwise pretty good book with a penultimate chapter that misleads the gullible with false insight? The best one can say is hubris: Silver has committed one of the sins he so sternly warns against: overconfidence, which, as he says, leads to the forcing of data to fit a curve or the "seeing" of a signal that might not be there.
drowns 'Signal'
On Nate Silver's book
The signal and the noise: why so many predictions fail -- but some don't
(Penguin 2012)
Nate Silver plainly believes knowledge is power. People who use statistical methods without incorporating relevant information tend to be less accurate at prediction than those who use both, he says.
This finding is born out by baseball forecasters, he writes. Though his own statistical method was fairly good, he concedes scouts spotted potential in players that his method did not. But on the other hand, scouts tended to overlook potential disclosed by statistics. Which is why, Silver says, teams these days combine statistical methods with scouting reports when choosing players.
Silver, a reformed internet poker shark, gives his general readers a taste of Bayesian probability, without going into much depth on the mathematics or the controversy concerning that approach.
Much of his book is given over to examples of how statistical forecasters often mistake signal for noise. He praises the improvement in weather forecasts but damns economic modeling.
And, after a well-researched look at the global warming debate, we discover: Silver is also an expert on terrorism.
He spoke with Donald Rumsfeld and read a book Rumsfeld recommended that explained why America was unprepared for the Pearl Harbor attack, which essentially said that though all the dots were there, they were improperly connected. Next, we come to how the attacks of 9/11 could have caught America off-guard. Only the intellectually lazy would think of conspiracy. Statistics confirm that failure to connect dots could easily be a true explanation.
Silver has committed the very blunder he so earnestly warns about earlier in his book: Failure to incorporate important information. He seems to have decided that because a probabilistic explanation can be used to endorse the official line, it's obvious that no further work need be done.
And he hasn't done that work.
In a seemingly well-researched chapter on global warming, Silver carefully examines the controversy. Not so for 9/11. Only one side of the controversy -- the government's -- is considered. Statistics, uninformed by relevant information establishing coverup, is then used to rationalize the government's claims. Most of his information concerning 9/11 appears to have come from the 9/11 commission report; Silver doesn't seem to realize that the commission's co-chairmen and its general counsel have distanced themselves from the report because of the CIA's concealment of evidence.
Why ruin an otherwise pretty good book with a penultimate chapter that misleads the gullible with false insight? The best one can say is hubris: Silver has committed one of the sins he so sternly warns against: overconfidence, which, as he says, leads to the forcing of data to fit a curve or the "seeing" of a signal that might not be there.
Monday, April 29, 2013
Saudi's 'terror' status forbade
his entry into U.S., Beck finds
His current location is unknown;
was he flown out of the country?
Glenn Beck spells out how Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano evaded key points.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/26/4-major-questions-that-remain-about-the-saudi-national-tagged-as-212a3b-terrorist-activities/
Second initial suspect found dead
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-25/falsely-identified-boston-bombing-suspect-found-dead
The following is from a government website:
Inadmissibility
Two grounds of inadmissibility:
• INA § 212(a)(3)(B)
• INA § 212(a)(3)(F)
INA § 212(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
* * * *
(3) (B) Terrorist Activities
(i) In General
Any alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity:
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of —
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under the subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
is inadmissible.
An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for the purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.
(ii) Exception
Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child—
(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or
(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.
(iii) Terrorist Activity Defined
As used in this Act, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV) An assassination.
(V) The use of any— (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(iv) Engage in Terrorist Activity Defined
As used in this Act, the term “engaged in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization—
(I) to commit or incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for—
(aa) a terrorist activity;
(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not have reasonably known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(V) to solicit any individual—
(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection;
(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not have reasonably known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; or
(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training—
(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such organization; or
(dd) or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.
(v) Representative Defined
As used in this paragraph, the term “representative” includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.
(vi) Terrorist Organization Defined
As used in this section, the term “terrorist organization” means an organization—
(I) designated under section 219;
(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or
(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).
INA § 212(a)(3)(F) Association with Terrorist Organizations
Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.
his entry into U.S., Beck finds
His current location is unknown;
was he flown out of the country?
Glenn Beck spells out how Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano evaded key points.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/26/4-major-questions-that-remain-about-the-saudi-national-tagged-as-212a3b-terrorist-activities/
Second initial suspect found dead
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-25/falsely-identified-boston-bombing-suspect-found-dead
The following is from a government website:
Inadmissibility
Two grounds of inadmissibility:
• INA § 212(a)(3)(B)
• INA § 212(a)(3)(F)
INA § 212(a) Classes of Aliens Ineligible for Visas or Admission
Except as otherwise provided in this Act, aliens who are inadmissible under the following paragraphs are ineligible to receive visas and ineligible to be admitted to the United States:
* * * *
(3) (B) Terrorist Activities
(i) In General
Any alien who—
(I) has engaged in a terrorist activity;
(II) a consular officer, the Attorney General, or the Secretary of Homeland Security knows, or has reasonable ground to believe, is engaged in or is likely to engage after entry in any terrorist activity (as defined in clause (iv));
(III) has, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily harm, incited terrorist activity:
(IV) is a representative (as defined in clause (v)) of —
(aa) a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(bb) a political, social, or other group that endorses or espouses terrorist activity;
(V) is a member of a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi);
(VI) is a member of a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the alien can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the alien did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(VII) endorses or espouses terrorist activity or persuades others to endorse or espouse terrorist activity or support a terrorist organization;
(VIII) has received military-type training (as defined in section 2339D(c)(1) of title 18, United States Code) from or on behalf of any organization that, at the time the training was received, was a terrorist organization (as defined in clause (vi)); or
(IX) is the spouse or child of an alien who is inadmissible under the subparagraph, if the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible occurred within the last 5 years,
is inadmissible.
An alien who is an officer, official, representative, or spokesman of the Palestine Liberation Organization is considered, for the purposes of this Act, to be engaged in a terrorist activity.
(ii) Exception
Subclause (VII) of clause (i) does not apply to a spouse or child—
(I) who did not know or should not reasonably have known of the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section; or
(II) whom the consular officer or Attorney General has reasonable grounds to believe has renounced the activity causing the alien to be found inadmissible under this section.
(iii) Terrorist Activity Defined
As used in this Act, the term “terrorist activity” means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if it had been committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:
(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel or vehicle).
(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order to compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained.
(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States Code) or upon the liberty of such a person.
(IV) An assassination.
(V) The use of any— (a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device, or (b) explosive, firearm, or other weapon or dangerous device (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property.
(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
(iv) Engage in Terrorist Activity Defined
As used in this Act, the term “engaged in terrorist activity” means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization—
(I) to commit or incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
(IV) to solicit funds or other things of value for—
(aa) a terrorist activity;
(bb) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III), unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not have reasonably known, that the organization was a terrorist organization;
(V) to solicit any individual—
(aa) to engage in conduct otherwise described in this subsection;
(bb) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(I) or (vi)(II); or
(cc) for membership in a terrorist organization described in clause (vi)(III) unless the solicitor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that he did not know, and should not have reasonably known, that the organization was a terrorist organization; or
(VI) to commit an act that the actor knows, or reasonably should know, affords material support, including a safe house, transportation, communications, funds, transfer of funds or other material financial benefit, false documentation or identification, weapons (including chemical, biological, or radiological weapons), explosives, or training—
(aa) for the commission of a terrorist activity;
(bb) to any individual who the actor knows, or reasonably should know, has committed or plans to commit a terrorist activity;
(cc) to a terrorist organization described in subclause (I) or (II) of clause (vi) or to any member of such organization; or
(dd) or to any member of such an organization, unless the actor can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the actor did not know, and should not reasonably have known, that the organization was a terrorist organization.
(v) Representative Defined
As used in this paragraph, the term “representative” includes an officer, official, or spokesman of an organization, and any person who directs, counsels, commands, or induces an organization or its members to engage in terrorist activity.
(vi) Terrorist Organization Defined
As used in this section, the term “terrorist organization” means an organization—
(I) designated under section 219;
(II) otherwise designated, upon publication in the Federal Register, by the Secretary of State in consultation with or upon the request of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as a terrorist organization, after finding that the organization engages in the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv); or
(III) that is a group of two or more individuals, whether organized or not, which engages in, or has a subgroup which engages in, the activities described in subclauses (I) through (VI) of clause (iv).
INA § 212(a)(3)(F) Association with Terrorist Organizations
Any alien who the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Attorney General, or the Attorney General, after consultation with the Secretary of State, determines has been associated with a terrorist organization and intends while in the United States to engage solely, principally, or incidentally in activities that could endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States is inadmissible.
No comments:
Post a Comment