Next Level BS #3: Exclusive: Kahler Nygard Interview on his TSA Harassment in Denver

Our third episode is an exclusive interview with Kahler Nygard, getting the full story on the video he posted last week, showing some startling TSA harassment after he landed in the Denver International Airport. TSA agent Alex Grossman demanded that Kahler go through "additional screening" of his person and luggage, upon arrival in Denver. The mainstream media has continually distorted this story, doing everything from labeling Kahler as a suspected Somali terrorist, to trying to defend the TSA by implying Kahler didn't get complete screening at this departure airport in Minneapolis. Next Level BS get's the story straight from Kahler Nygard himself.




Share this video. Tell your friends. Set the story straight. Expose the Next Level BS!


Follow Next Level BS on Twitter @theNLBS

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Check us out on DailyMotion

Follow Next Level BS on LockerDome

Or, just go to the website: Next Level BS Website







Next Level BS is a production of The Above Network, LLC, with the collaboration of AboveTopSecret.com. The views expressed in the videos, video comments, and social media pages of Next Level BS are those of the producers and host, and don't necessarily reflect the views of AboveTopSecret.com or The Above Network, LLC.

Good interview. Only criticism I have is that whip sound is way too loud, scared the # out of me lol. Good choice of subject, and nice job securing the interview. Is he a member here I wonder?

My favorite part of this thread is how fast you got a video interview with Mr. Nygard. Good job! I'm glad to hear nothing else 'happened to him' during his departure from the Denver Airport.

Next Level BS ... you bet. I'm glad I don't walk in that guy's shoes or where his shirt. Looks like TPTB are ready to sew a big yellow star on it. I'm sure Nygard felt that way leaving the airplane with all those people staring the way they did.

Been a NLBS lurker since the inception; keep going and ramp up the efforts. It is time and we are tired.

Kudos to the next level.

a reply to: theNLBS

Strong work, but...

What about young Kahler?

Security theatre is one thing, but "free-man-on-the-land" bull# theatre makes me almost just a little bit more nauseous.

Kahler #ing with "the man" til he gets the YouTube video of his dreams?

Thet there has to be at least 80% on the NLBS meter.

Right?

a reply to: Bybyots

He said he "looked into it."

In our conversation previous to the interview, he's not really a "freeman on the land," but has some affinity to their attempts to find alternative ways in dealing with an overbearing government.

But still… it doesn't matter, does it? Simply being semi-active on discussion boards on that topic three years ago shouldn't put someone on the no-fly list. If it does, we have much bigger problems.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

He said he "looked into it."

Kahler transcribed:

"For a few years I've been testing different legal theories, different ways of operating within the system, uh, I've been on forums, that uh, people consider themselves sovereign citizens/Freeman-Upon-The-Land, stuff like that, uh, I'm right there in the trenches seeing what's going on, so that could be why.

My interest is not to be violent at all, so...."

Gosh thanks, Kahler, I'm glad we got that out of the way.




Nearly 15 years down the road and I have very little sympathy for anyone's woes concerning all of this.

I've tried to put it behind me, retool, and move on.

I'll give it some thought. I don't have a good patent answer for your last question at the moment.

For the time being, though, it sounds to me like Kahler's family enjoys being embroiled in trouble with the Govt., local and otherwise.

But I respect the fact that you still seem to have energy for this stuff.

originally posted by: Bybyots
and otherwise.

I really don't think it's intentional.

His father invented a form of vertical axis wind turbine, that can generate a fair amount of electricity, quietly, in your own back yard.


Being someone who is experimenting with renewable energy myself (large-scale solar water heater in my yard), his efforts are commendable. A similar inventor was shut down by the utility a few years back in CT -- similar idea, vertical axis wind turbine. He was sued out of existence by the state at the behest of the utility.

We may do a segment on him in the future also.

Waitaminute

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I really don't think it's intentional.

Yes it is,

It's clear that Nygard is on a crusade. He refuses to take down the 30-foot wind turbine in his back yard even though the city of Orono has sued him over a zoning violation. A judge has already ordered him to take it down because it was too close to property lines and the correct permits hadn't been pulled.

Neighbors have sued him too, claiming the wind turbine is a nuisance. They've complained both about the noise and the strobe effect of the sun hitting the blades -- but Nygard says they contribute noise of their own.

"The neighbors have the worst barking dogs you've ever heard," he said.

www.myfoxtwincities.com...

Nygard is an asshole with a 30 foot wind turbine that functions like a strobe light when the sun hits it right. It's a neighbor dispute.

It's not about renewable energy.

He needs to move someplace where he can put up a 30 foot-whatever.

Tell me we aren't going to make heroes out of these two assholes.

Kahler screwed with his "different legal theories" till he got what he wanted and he made sure a camera man was there to capture it.

Kahler Nygard does not "Wins the internets".

Sorry SO, this stuff really bugs me.

This was good !

It was as clear as it can be regarding the available information.

Stuff like this needs to be put out in the open in order to prevent it from happening too much.

@SkepticOverlord,

I would watch that about the "vertical axis wind turbine."

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

You realize where Nygard is trying to build his giant flashing tower, right?

Orono joins elite U.S. list for home prices

I hope that no one is surprised that Nygard's neighbors and the city of Orono want him to take the thing down.

Always one more thing.

a reply to: Bybyots
More proof we don't really own property, we have to get out neighbor's and town's permission to use our property as we see fit.

a reply to: TKDRL

Well, look, Orono only has about 8000 people living in it. It's a very exclusive place to live. You can imagine that people work hard to make a living that affords them the opportunity to have a home there, and here comes this guy with the 30 foot tower.

They ask him to take it down and he refuses, sues his neighbors, and builds four more.

What a nightmare.

One dude vs 8000.

a reply to: Bybyots

So you're saying it's okay for a renewable energy inventor to be shut down because his neighbors are displeased?






Really?

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

No, I think he should have taken the first tower down (and not built four more) and not screwed with the judge to the point that it has put his business in jeopardy.

Living in American neighborhoods has become a place where you find a lot of NLBS these days, and Nygard is a poster-child for it.

Nightmare neighbor from hell. And he complains about their dogs, that's all he's got.

I'm in agreement with the guy being interviewed. I don't think this had anything to do with his father's wind turbines. He said himself that for a couple of years that he's "been testing different legal theories, and other ways to operate within the system".

I would like to have seen Joe press a little harder to get him to elaborate a little further on that. Apparently he's still pretty active in the Sovereign Citizens movement and I'd like to know what kind of comments he's made and on what forums that would lead him to expect to still be on a no-fly list.

I also suspect that he was a bit disappointed about being let on the plane without any drama for his cameraman to record, which leads me to believe that he left out a few subtle but important details about his activity on the plane.

I'd say this guy was at least worthy of an everyday bull$hit rating himself.

Maybe "probably" I don't have my facts correct....Please tell me where I'm wrong.

1) He alluded to the fact that he was currently on the no fly list.

2) A Federal Judge ruled the no fly list unconstitutional.

3) He seemed to be under the impression he wasn't going to be able to fly at all.

4) So we have a guy that was allowed to fly even though he is on the no fly list.

5) Is it correct to assume the no fly list is no longer being used ?

6) If it is no longer being used isn't that kind of dangerous ?

I just find this poignant. I want to keep up. Thanks

a reply to: whyamIhere

the blacklist is still very much in full effect. Mr. Nygard is most likely placed on the "selectee" designation and may have and 'upgrade' designation placed on him for extra screening at all federal facilities, airports and border crossings wether he is coming or leaving. Of course the big elephant for everyone is just how do you end up on the list?

The Intercept recently obtained the most recent public release of "The Watchlisting Guidance March 2013" edition that give a detailed account of how federal agencies are instructed to place person on differing levels of watch and the criteria needed to implement.

firstlook.org...

The Obama administration has quietly approved a substantial expansion of the terrorist watchlist system, authorizing a secret process that requires neither “concrete facts” nor “irrefutable evidence” to designate an American or foreigner as a terrorist, according to a key government document obtained by The Intercept.

from the article.

Until 2001, the government did not prioritize building a watchlist system. On 9/11, the government’s list of people barred from flying included just 16 names. Today, the no fly list has swelled to tens of thousands of “known or suspected terrorists” (the guidelines refer to them as KSTs). The selectee list subjects people to extra scrutiny and questioning at airports and border crossings. The government has created several other databases, too. The largest is the Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment (TIDE), which gathers terrorism information from sensitive military and intelligence sources around the world. Because it contains classified information that cannot be widely distributed, there is yet another list, the Terrorist Screening Database, or TSDB, which has been stripped of TIDE’s classified data so that it can be shared. When government officials refer to “the watchlist,” they are typically referring to the TSDB. (TIDE is the responsibility of the National Counterterrorism Center; the TSDB is managed by the Terrorist Screening Center at the FBI.)

the actual The Watchlisting Guidance manual is linked at the bottom of the article.

a wanted to also add a couple of more quotes from the Intercept article on blacklisting, in case people were not going to dedicate the time to read the full article to give an idea of the ridiculous double speak that is used in the definitions of just how you can end up on either the selectee or no-fly list, with other "upgrades" always available to further restrict transportation and freedom of movement.

The heart of the document revolves around the rules for placing individuals on a watchlist. “All executive departments and agencies,” the document says, are responsible for collecting and sharing information on terrorist suspects with the National Counterterrorism Center. It sets a low standard—”reasonable suspicion“—for placing names on the watchlists, and offers a multitude of vague, confusing, or contradictory instructions for gauging it. In the chapter on “Minimum Substantive Derogatory Criteria”—even the title is hard to digest—the key sentence on reasonable suspicion offers little clarity:

“To meet the REASONABLE SUSPICION standard, the NOMINATOR, based on the totality of the circumstances, must rely upon articulable intelligence or information which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrants a determination that an individual is known or suspected to be or has been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.”

The rulebook makes no effort to define an essential phrase in the passage—”articulable intelligence or information.” After stressing that hunches are not reasonable suspicion and that “there must be an objective factual basis” for labeling someone a terrorist, it goes on to state that no actual facts are required:

“In determining whether a REASONABLE SUSPICION exists, due weight should be given to the specific reasonable inferences that a NOMINATOR is entitled to draw from the facts in light of his/her experience and not on unfounded suspicions or hunches. Although irrefutable evidence or concrete facts are not necessary, to be reasonable, suspicion should be as clear and as fully developed as circumstances permit.”

a reply to: whyamIhere
came back to peek if there were any more comments here.. and re-read you question regarding the federal judge finding, it was the ability to get off of the blacklist and the also super secret classification that a judge found unconstitutional. of course we are still in legal limbo on many of these areas of classification that restrict a person from even knowing what process you can redress yourself from the list.

The government has been widely criticized for making it impossible for people to know why they have been placed on a watchlist, and for making it nearly impossible to get off. The guidelines bluntly state that “the general policy of the U.S. Government is to neither confirm nor deny an individual’s watchlist status.” But the courts have taken exception to the official silence and footdragging: In June, a federal judge described the government’s secretive removal process as unconstitutional and “wholly ineffective.”

The difficulty of getting off the list is highlighted by a passage in the guidelines stating that an individual can be kept on the watchlist, or even placed onto the watchlist, despite being acquitted of a terrorism-related crime. The rulebook justifies this by noting that conviction in U.S. courts requires evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas watchlisting requires only a reasonable suspicion. Once suspicion is raised, even a jury’s verdict cannot erase it.

Not even death provides a guarantee of getting off the list. The guidelines say the names of dead people will stay on the list if there is reason to believe the deceased’s identity may be used by a suspected terrorist–which the National Counterterrorism Center calls a “demonstrated terrorist tactic.” In fact, for the same reason, the rules permit the deceased spouses of suspected terrorists to be placed onto the list after they have died.

For the living, the process of getting off the watchlist is simple yet opaque. A complaint can be filed through the Department of Homeland Security Traveler Redress Inquiry Program, which launches an internal review that is not subject to oversight by any court or entity outside the counterterrorism community. The review can result in removal from a watchlist or an adjustment of watchlist status, but the individual will not be told if he or she prevails. The guidelines highlight one of the reasons why it has been difficult to get off the list—if multiple agencies have contributed information on a watchlisted individual, all of them must agree to removing him or her.

firstlook.org...