It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Confirmed: Foreign Gov’t Asked FBI to Look at Boston Suspect for ‘Extremist Ties’ in 2011

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 04:32 AM
reply to post by Pixiefyre

But if he has been checked and cleared and has done nothing wrong you cant just go ahead and arrest him is my point.

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:36 AM
reply to post by zonetripper2065

He was checked and cleared prior to the Boston event, and as the event had yet to occur there was no reason at that point in time to consider that in the future such a thing would happen. He was not cleared of the Boston event, he was cleared of the suspicions that the unnamed foreign government had requested he be investigated for the year before.

In regards to the Boston even he was not checked or cleared of involvement in that incident which resulted in 3 deaths and multiple other serious injuries.

In regards to this specific offense, the police, courts, and government have probable cause that indicates there is sufficient evidence indicating his possible involvement in the crime to address the issue in a court of law.

Although one is supposed to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the courts must balance their decisions while considering risk to public safety.

I have a great example of this process for you. After the apt complex I was living in repeatedly failed to comply with our agreed upon reasonable accommodation which required of them nothing more than a simple 2 minute phone call, but the phone call, or more appropriately the failure of them to make that phone call would result in serious injury and possible death for me. My husband took additional supporting documentation to the office of the property manager, placed them on her desk and told her to include this information in my file so they could not say they didn't know in the future. I was on the phone the entire time, she kept the line open the entire time he was in the office so I was able to hear every single thing that occurred. She responded by screaming at him that she didn't care and wasn't going to look at the documents, she ordered him out of her office on threat of contacting the police. He said "fine, I didn't want to be here anyway" and left and was back home before she disconnected the phone when I attempted to speak to her again.

A week later while I was in the hospital recovering from that very same failure on their part to call me, the police arrived at our apt while I was on the phone with my husband, they informed him that they needed to question him about the incident and the sooner he got off the phone with me and went the sooner he would be back home.

Once outside they put cuffs on him and informed him that they had a warrant for his arrest, but did not inform him of the cause for this. He was in the township jail for an hour before they explained the reason for his arrest, the property manager filed a battery complaint against him, claiming that the papers he laid on her desk fell off and hit her, and that he told her he was going to "kick her you know what". The verbal threat I can verify never occurred, and immediately after she disconnected the call on the day of the incident I immediately called back to implore her to have some mercy and comply with the agreement. She informed me that she knocked the papers all over the floor, had to pick them up and threw them in the garbage, that there was no way she was going to read them.

If effect my husband was arrested for "battery by paper", he was never given the opportunity or questioned during this part of the process in regards to "his side of the story", it didn't matter. He was later taken to the county jail as I did what I could to get released from the hospital against my physicians best judgement, (because the police told him he didn't need his wallet) he had no money for bail, or to call me. The next morning he entered a plea of Not guilty over a television monitor interface, and the judge granted him bail of $1000. I was able to get home but we did not have $1000 on hand so he had to wait a total of 4 days in jail for me to come up with the bail. The case was in the courts for over a year, with him requesting a jury trial as he was innocent, and them attempting to plea bargain by increasing the charges if he would plead guilty, by then they knew that if their battery by paper came before a jury they probably would be laughed out of court or charged with malicious prosecution. Eventually they gave in, but he didn't get any form of compensation for the 4 days in jail and the year of running back and forth to court.

The fact is once a determination of probable cause is assessed, a person can be detained until they make bail or until their case goes to court, that is when the innocent until proven guilty comes into play, but it's up to the person accused to prove their innocence, it is somewhat taken for granted since their complaint is recorded under oath, that the accuser has provided honest and factual proof of the validity of their complaint.

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 06:11 AM

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by zonetripper2065
As far as I know there isnt a department of investigations of future crimes yet.

Obviously another Country was "interested" in this guy, and had the common sense to ask questions about him.

I am 100% sure there is more to this story.

Like another Poster said, someone should lose their Job because of this.

I think people are being a little too knee-jerk over this.

What if there was absolutely nothing to find, at all, but the the way he was interviewed or handled by the FBI caused him to go down that path? What if he were radicalised after? What if that inquisitive government was responsible for that later radicalisation and simply used the request to rule him out of any future monitoring?

There are plenty of reasons why nothing would have been strange, the most likely of them is that he wasn't a radical at that time.

Before everyone starts screaming for the blood of the FBI, have a cup of tea, think about it, chill out a little, think logically... there is plenty of time to string people up by their man vegetables if it's found to be a failing in the FBI.

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 06:26 AM
Jail time is in play for those responsible for the BP oil spill because people died due to negligence, there should be jail time for those negligent by letting this guy fall through the cracks.

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by zonetripper2065

Not just that, doesnt it seem a bit odd that the mom has stated that the one son was working with the FBI for years and now this story comes out where they admit having contact with him?

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:26 AM
Sound Familiar?

The Deafness before the Storm

IT was perhaps the most famous presidential briefing in history.

On Aug. 6, 2001, President George W. Bush received a classified review of the threats posed by Osama bin Laden and his terrorist network, Al Qaeda. That morning’s “presidential daily brief” — the top-secret document prepared by America’s intelligence agencies — featured the now-infamous heading: “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.” A few weeks later, on 9/11, Al Qaeda accomplished that goal.

On April 10, 2004, the Bush White House declassified that daily brief — and only that daily brief — in response to pressure from the 9/11 Commission, which was investigating the events leading to the attack. Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack. While some critics considered that claim absurd, a close reading of the brief showed that the argument had some validity.

" Administration officials dismissed the document’s significance, saying that, despite the jaw-dropping headline, it was only an assessment of Al Qaeda’s history, not a warning of the impending attack"

That's Your Government people.
edit on 20-4-2013 by whatzshaken because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:48 AM
reply to post by Pixiefyre

I am well aware of the situation. They checked him and he wasnt seen as a threat end of story.

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:52 AM
reply to post by gladtobehere

Maybe maybe not. At this point it's hear say from a terrorists mother.

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:03 AM
I wrote this in another thread, but i'll write it again here, as its relevant to this thread too.

This kid was interviewed, demmed legit, and sent on his way...if i read everything right.

Anyone here on ATS remember the fact that Mohammed Atta had an arrest warrent issued for him by a Miami court house a month before 9/11.
It was issued on the fact he didn't show up for court on a driving without a licence charge.

In the time between the warrent being issued and 9/11 he was stopped twice for speeding.

On running his details through the computer nothing showed up....TWICE..

His warrent had been erased from the system by somebody.

Why ??

Because if Atta was locked up, then 9/11 would'nt have gone ahead, or would have to have been changed radically,maybe even called off.

This kid was deemed a good boy because what happened Wednesday, had to happen.

They had their patsy, and nothing was going to stop them.

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:17 PM
Here are some questions nobody is asking:

Was he on any psych meds or history of mental health problems?
Did he have any guns?
How much money did he have in the bank?
Did he have any arrest history, such as with drugs?

So let me get this straight. I make upset a country outside of my own, they can ask the FBI to investigate me for whatever, the FBI obliges and effectively the FBI is a hand of a foreign government? But the FBI won't care if I knock on their door saying certain people from another country are doing bad things and ought to be looked at in my own country?

Yeah well that isn't going to get anything solved. I think the public has unusual expectations of what the FBI can do. They take care of the USA. So, if this is a black bag job, from within, by design they aren't going to find the true culprits. By design of their duties, they're going to find a non-US-ties suspect first. Your news people are pushing the propaganda hard.

But I'm telling you that after that event, the whole nation's layers investigatory groups went like an anthill under attack, looking for suspects, despite the newspaper ads that the FBI Boston group got their suspect. It means they went back on people that may have been previously cleared. As in, I got investigated last year, and then the day following this Boston thing, I had helicopter surveillance over my home, the same local investigators as last year following me through my neighborhood, guys on foot, and the ever I-can't-believe-they're-not-covert guy with the IBM laptop following me into a fast food restaurant. I had a white surveillance van, plates from Ohio, out of state, parked outside at the movie theater, with Mohammed-style surveillance guys sitting in my theater row (can't tell if that is good or evil right now), very unpleasant. I had military intelligence on the backside of my browser, that's how big it isI know I'm not a bad guy, but they are suspect-blind because the Bureau has officially failed to prevent an attack and they are trying to make an outside enemy to prosecute.

But if I call the cops I get put in the funny farm.

They follow these things so hard, as in, something weird gets posted here, the next day the FBI has technique to follow a poster, normally on a non-disaster day. They have their lists, they have their big computers color-grading threats and connections and all that, they have their criminal science methods. Do you know how agitating it can be to feel those guys and gals breathing down your neck with their pocket-cams and Infragard investigation network? It's like a nun for a chaperone at the prom, you can't do nice things even, because they are on a mission to incriminate, even the typcially innocuous things get stretched and used against their suspects. But you know what I'm the nice government supporting person while the real terrorists hired an attorney to threaten to sue the FBI for religious/ethnic discrimination, so do you see how the feebs are functionally unable to get their bad guys?

So maybe another policing agency will tell the actual story of what happened.
edit on 20-4-2013 by Sandalphon because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-4-2013 by Sandalphon because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 03:35 PM
reply to post by Rocker2013

Heres some facts to consider.

* Some 1,271 government organizations and 1,931 private companies work on programs related to counterterrorism, homeland security and intelligence in about 10,000 locations across the United States.

* An estimated 854,000 people, nearly 1.5 times as many people as live in Washington, D.C., hold top-secret security clearances.

* In Washington and the surrounding area, 33 building complexes for top-secret intelligence work are under construction or have been built since September 2001. Together they occupy the equivalent of almost three Pentagons or 22 U.S. Capitol buildings - about 17 million square feet of space.

* Many security and intelligence agencies do the same work, creating redundancy and waste. For example, 51 federal organizations and military commands, operating in 15 U.S. cities, track the flow of money to and from terrorist networks.

* Analysts who make sense of documents and conversations obtained by foreign and domestic spying share their judgment by publishing 50,000 intelligence reports each year - a volume so large that many are routinely ignored.

A hidden world, growing beyond control

Here lies the problem. I believe the The Amount of Agencies that overlook is so big, that even if a guy was waving a sign that says terrorist, he wouldn't be checked out. There has to be a better way of doing things.

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 05:36 PM
At a loss? How is this hard to understand? First, the amount of time between then an now is enough time for someone to "change". Second, if you were planning to one day attempt some sort of attack, would you make yourself look like a dangerous person in front of the FBI? And third, poor investigating is common. Even when they practically know they have a dangerous person in their hands, they let them go. Look at the years leading up to 9/11.
edit on 20-4-2013 by SeriousIndividual because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 09:38 AM
This is just one in a long line of failures by those who are charged with protecting us. In terrorist attacks how many times have we heard, they were questioned/investigated by the FBI, etc. The CIA has been wrong just as often. How come these guys are not held accountable?

If the request came from Russia, was there an element of the old cold war attitude that came into play??

It is my understanding Tamerlan Tsarnaev was quite verbal in his radical islamic views. Could he at least been put on a watch list or a no fly list? Regular people have been targeted and put on these lists.

I just can picture this guy with his fingers crossed behind his back telling the FBI how much he loves America. I don't think we can be made safe against guys like this, so why spend the resources?

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 10:03 AM

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Kryties

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by Kryties
I would like to know, whatever happened to "Innocent before proven Guilty"? Is this just a 'fad' that came and went?

Strapping a BOMB to your chest kind of throws the innocent part out of the equation, doesn't it???

Thankyou for proving my point.

So I proved he was innocently strapping a bomb to his body?


Its not a fashion statement, that's for sure......

Can you prove without a doubt he had a bomb strapped to his chest and did all the things the news said he did? No, please don't post a youtube video with a ranting mentally unstable "duder" when we can skip the trial process

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 10:08 AM
Here is my wild thought about this.

What if this was a ploy to get him off the government radar? The best defense is an offense, so to speak.

If the two suspects are part of a larger cell, out of Russia, it's kind of a great way to make him look legit by having him investigated before anything starts ramping up. If there was a red flag later on, it would have been more likely dismissed since they had already cleared him.


edit on 4/21/2013 by kosmicjack because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 21 2013 @ 10:38 AM

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by sonnny1

Think about this before their photos were released to the public the FBI, and LEO said they had exhausted everything they had which was why they needed the public's help.

The FBI already had backgrounds on both from the investigation in 2011 if the FBI is really that inept we are in bigtime trouble,.

I appreciate what you're saying. Their photo's should have been put through a facial recognition programme that no doubt a number of F.B.I agents are expertly trained in.

However, if they did interview him back in 2011 and found him to be no threat, why would they necessarily immediately turn their attentions to this guy?

I'm sure they have interviewed hundreds of people in the Boston area and found them to be no threat over the last few years. Hindsight is a wonderful tool, if only foresight was so reliable.
edit on 21/4/13 by Cobaltic1978 because: (no reason given)

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in