The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not yet spoken in his own defense may be less about national security and more about muzzling the truth.
The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not yet spoken in his own defense may be less about national security and more about muzzling the truth.

The fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not yet spoken in his own defense may be less about national security and more about muzzling the truth.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was raised to take the direction of the most powerful adult in his life, his attorneys say—and now all those powerful adults seem to be telling the 21-year-old to sit down and shut up.

And to make sure he shuts up, they have been holding him under Special Administrative Measures (SAMs) that severely restrict any contact with the outside world. This is presumably to prevent him from communicating to the outside world any plans that could result in death or bodily harm.

But is muzzling the defendant really in the interest of national security—or in the interest of the national security apparatuses?

For the two years since the April 15, 2013, Boston Marathon bombings, WhoWhatWhy has documented the myriad ways that arms of the US government have contradicted its claim that the two Tsarnaev brothers were “lone wolves” motivated by ideology, with the feds consistently seeking to suppress information that could shed light on the bombings. This includes keeping the defendant totally mute.

To date, we have not heard a word from him—and now, even after he was convicted, we still have not heard a peep. This is in part, too, due to the strategy his own attorneys employed. Seeing the impossibility of their own investigators getting to the bottom of the many mysteries in the case, they threw in the towel, claiming their client “did it,” and blamed the influence of his dead older brother, Tamerlan, in hopes of achieving the dubious victory of a life sentence without parole.

Now, in the “penalty phase,” while he awaits word of whether he will face the death penalty, Tsarnaev sits there, mute and virtually expressionless, causing some to wonder just how bad were the injuries he sustained when police fired upwards of 100 bullets into the boat where he was hiding, or if he might be heavily medicated.

And yet he seemed particularly astute during the defense’s presentation of its case during the guilt phase. He frequently spoke with his attorneys, and wrote Post-it notes to them as they were examining witnesses. If he wasn’t incapacitated, why wouldn’t his legal team allow him to speak in his own defense?

Continuing Mysteries

Any thinking person (and we’ve heard from far too few as this affair has unfolded in all its tabloid luridness) would wonder:

Does Dzhokhar Tsarnaev want to testify? If so, why has he been stopped from doing so? What would he have had to lose? Do his lawyers think the prosecution would provoke him into behaving in a manner that would harden the jury against him even more? If he is the victim of more complex circumstances, why not give him a chance to say so? And if he is a terrorist, why would he not want to publicize his cause and have his lawyers show photos of dead Muslim children killed by American drone strikes?

Why bomb a public event if you’re not making a political statement?

The defense’s strategic decision not to help us learn more about what the Tsarnaev brothers were up to—and why—seems a strange one. But then so does the constant invocation of “national security” by government agencies in repeatedly blocking disclosures and sealing a plethora of motions. The paradox is that we’ve been repeatedly told that this plot was about nothing larger than two misguided young people operating alone.

But as our reports have shown, the FBI had a prior relationship with Tamerlan Tsarnaev, sought to recruit others in his orbit as plot infiltrators, and, bizarrely, failed to monitor his doings and international travel even after a warning from Russian intelligence.

Somehow, all of this has been lost or buried. It barely came up in the trial, perhaps because of the strategy: blame it all on the elder brother, then assure that virtually nothing about the elder brother can be deemed germane, because he is dead and not on trial.

Unapologetic Killer or Pliant Follower?

The jury heard this claim: “Dzhokhar (Tsarnaev) had been raised all his life to take direction from the most powerful adult.”

Rather tellingly, the person who argued that point might just be one of the most powerful adults in the convicted Boston Marathon bomber’s life: his attorney, David Bruck.

Bruck, together with Tsarnaev’s other lead attorneys Judy Clark and appointed federal defender Miriam Conrad, hold Tsarnaev’s life in their hands as they attempt to show that their client was really nothing more than a “lost teenager” without any real motivation to bomb anything. They are arguing, during the sentencing phase of the trial, that Tsarnaev would never have committed this crime had he not taken direction from his older brother, Tamerlan.

Remaining rigidly locked into this approach, they have sought to demonstrate their cooperation with every point asserted by the government.

The Silence of the SAMs

If Tsarnaev is given life in prison, his lawyer has said that he would be completely cut off from the outside world.

If Tsarnaev is given life in prison, his lawyer has said that he would be completely cut off from the outside world.

We get a rare look at the inner-workings of his trial team’s strategy in a transcript released by the court during the sentencing phase. The transcript was of a lobby conference to which the jury was not privy.

The transcript reveals that Tsarnaev’s attorneys were so determined to show their cooperation and commitment to ensuring that their client would never again pose a risk that they agreed to any conditions of confinement—including his total muzzling. In his opening argument to the penalty phase, Bruck virtually guaranteed that should the jury  send him to prison for the rest of his life, Tsarnaev would live a lifetime of pained silence in retribution for what he did.

“There are no interviews with the news media. There will be no autobiography. There will be no messages relayed from Dzhokhar onto the internet. There will be no nothing. There will be no media spotlight coming back on him as an execution date approaches. And one important thing you’ll learn is that the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s Office here in Boston are in a position to help ensure that Dzhokhar is cut off from the outside world forever if they think it best. So the evidence will show that if you sentence Dzhokhar to a lifetime of thinking about what he did, you’ll both punish him and protect society at the same time.”

To be sure, the defense likely hopes that promising Tsarnaev will never cause further anguish to the victims will be an effective bargaining chip. But there seems to be more to it.

“If They Think It Best”

One phrase above especially stands out:

”If they think it best.” 

Best for whom that Tsarnaev be silenced?

Bruck was referring to the SAMs, which allow the government to restrict a prisoner’s communications in ways that may include “housing the inmate in administrative detention and/or limiting certain privileges, including, but not limited to, correspondence, visiting, interviews with representatives of the news media, and use of the telephone, as is reasonably necessary to protect persons against the risk of acts of violence or terrorism.”

The law was established to prevent presumably dangerous inmates—those accused of terrorism, espionage, mob or gang activity—from communicating to the outside world any plans that could result in death or bodily harm.

Tsarnaev will most likely go to a federal supermax prison—whether he is given life without parole or the death penalty—and be kept in solitary confinement. As the measures currently stand, he would never be able to tell his version of events, communicate the reason behind his murderous rampage or cry out that he was framed, coerced, or caught up in something larger.

Assuming he was, as convicted, involved in a plot to harm large numbers of people, it would seem to be in the interest of public safety to learn something from and about those who would commit such acts. And if this story is much more complicated—as suggested by the anomalies WhoWhatWhy has uncovered—then it is in the rather urgent interests of a democracy increasingly beset by an unaccountable security state to hear directly from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.


0 responses to “Boston Bomber’s Deafening Silence: What Would Tsarnaev Reveal?”

  1. Elderly R. Staff says:

    Does anybody believe a word of what has been ‘reported’? Really this is a joke – someone is just having a ball with this story. Why wouldn’t bright young things want to be reporters if you can have this much malarkey to your reportorial credit? Will this be the next fashionable profession? Nuts.

    • Indi says:

      Lara Turner’s reporting is very serious, well though and well researched. Thanks god it has nothing to do with the malarkey, to put it in Your words, that mainstream media has been reporting.

  2. Barbara Henninger says:

    I was thinking of Mumia Abu Jamal’s regular radio broardcasts from prison while he was on death row for allegedly killing a cop. I wonder how he was able to access the outside world so extensively and Johar can’t even send or receive a letter from a friend? This arbitrary and cruel application of the Special Administrative Measures (SAM’s) – obviously unconstitutional – goes pretty much unreported ,except by Lara and a very few other news correspondents.

  3. sk1951 says:

    The only one that died or was injured was his brother. Infective council.

  4. oh_look says:

    An excellent article that will make you think was recently posted (in April) by two guys. One guy is an Attorney Kurt Haskell who had been on Plane with the underwear bomber (read his account of that, very interesting). Anyways, they wrote about Boston. Please give it a read. They speculate about one of the spectators at the marathon as a possible person of interest. Also, Kurt says that the defense could have defended Jahar and gotten an acquittal. Of course, in a normal criminal case that would be true, but since the FBI/GOV are involved, anything goes apparently.

  5. edwardrynearson says:

    what would he reveal? > the whole thing was badly staged?

  6. oh_look says:

    Interesting how they just dropped charges against Ailina Tsarnaeva. I have a funny feeling that’s tied into Jahar’s silence too. There must be deals going on beyond the back doors.

  7. Clem Kadidlehopper says:

    To anyone honest and discerning, it’s obvious who the author of these so called terrorist acts are.
    This fellow is much a patsy as Timothy McVeigh and Harvey Oswald, Harvey even admitted it after realizing it in jail. Can’t have that happening again. So, more then likely keeping a Patsy like this fellow alive, one never knows what could go wrong and something could be learned of the truth down the road.
    Nevertheless, just like the 3rd Reich was already a has been as early as 1942-43, the US is there in 2015.
    If you love you’re life, you’ll get out and let it face its destiny now on the horizon. The world is tired of the Sociopaths who run its government and hence time draws short for you and I to realize the truth and face reality. Get out while you can.
    former citizen

  8. onetree says:

    To WhoWhatWhy —
    Is there a limit on allowed characters or what determines whether a comment is rejected? Anything that gets too close to a dreaded “conspiracy theory?”

  9. Suze O says:

    I thought I had read somewhere that Tsarnaev was not injured in the throat during the shooting or before he surrendered, but that one of the captors slit his throat – maybe there was an understanding to silence him from the get-go? If so, perhaps the lockdown of the neighborhood and telling everyone to stay home would also keep people from hearing anything he said. The more I watch this situation, the more I am reminded of the Patty Hearst case. Where is the Stockholm Syndrome defense this time? It sounds like his attorneys are arguing much the same thing, but just not using the term. The term implies an official, well-researched diagnosis – which I would think would carry more weight in a court case. Of course, Patty Hearst had a lot of money and power working for her.

    • onetree says:

      I read that the throat slitting was actually an emergency tracheotomy and that soon after getting out of the boat Dzhokhar collapsed. I have no way of knowing whether that’s true or not.

      Here is an excerpt from an article describing the wounds he is reported to have sustained:
      [He suffered] gunshot wounds to his head, face, throat, jaw, left hand
      and both legs.” Within minutes of arrival, Tsarnaev’s “mental status
      suddenly declined,” and doctors had to perform an emergency tracheotomy
      to keep him alive. One of the shots had fractured the base of Tsarnaev’s
      skull, and his attorneys, citing hospital records, said another gunshot
      “likely caused traumatic brain injury… Damage to the cranial nerves
      required his left eye be sutured shut; his jaw was wired closed and
      injures to his left ear left him unable to hear on that side.”
      Actually a pretty interesting article.

    • Suze O says:

      Are there any recent photos of him that would show any of these marks or are we to have only courtroom sketches?

    • onetree says:

      Not that I know of besides the “middle finger” picture and video. Of course, they could be lying and actually were trying to kill him or at least keep him quiet.

    • Suze O says:

      It would be the height of irony if after the doctors took such measures to save his life, the Feds were to decide to kill him.

    • onetree says:

      It would indeed. But are you saying the Feds decide and then inform the jury what they want? I’ve been wondering if at least some of them are legitimate ordinary members of the community or planted by the Feds.

    • russbaker says:

      This is exactly the kind of misinterpretation of what another commenter said, compounded by an unfounded statement, that is not particularly appreciated here. She was obviously just speaking of the irony of saving someone’s life only to execute him later, nothing more. We’ll get our Comments Policy back up.

    • onetree says:

      I was merely asking a question. If you’ll notice, she did state “…the Feds were to decide to kill him.” Since I don’t know this person I would have no way of knowing what her “obvious” intention was. Unfounded statement? I’m not a journalist and wasn’t aware that my opinions had to be founded. Now I understand. If I offended this person, I do apologize and won’t make any further comments on this site.

    • Inshort says:

      The message seems clear. I like the site but I’m probably not coming back.

    • onetree says:

      Oh, it was the side of his neck. Well, no they wouldn’t.

    • oh_look says:

      There’s a video of about 4 or 5 guys, either FBI or local law enforcement, who were giving a quick press conference shortly after the boat arrest. They all had been there, apparently, and one guy said to the reporters, when asked about Jahar’s wounds, that it looked “more like a knife wound” regarding his neck. Two of the other law enforcement guys looked over at each other really quick when he said that….like they got worried about what he was saying. (fwiw)

    • lofty1 says:

      The video you are referring to was Anderson Cooper’s interview of the SWAT team that made the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev from the boat.

  10. Inshort says:

    To WhoWhatWhy: I would very much like to subscribe to this website, make an ongoing donation to support your work, but I find the censorship here troublesome in the extreme. I would like to know why comments that suggest nothing abrasive or problematic are continually being withdrawn with the notation: “Hold on, this is waiting to be approved by WhoWhatWhy.”

    Why are you so skittish about comments made in good faith by people, like me, who just want to know? To understand?

    If there is no reasonable answer to this question, then my response will be to move on. There’s lots of good alternative news sites out there.

    • onetree says:

      I’ve just sent in a long comment and am again getting the “Hold on, ….” message (40 minutes and still waiting). I seem to only get those when I’ve written something that strays from official narratives. Do they know what’s in there? Are they reading keystrokes somehow before the post button is clicked? The last time I waited hours and that comment never showed up. Or maybe they just don’t like long comments.

      I agree with you. I’ve strongly considered making donations, but comment rejection is a little troubling. Is it possible they’re doing it to protect us, their readers, from a snooping government? Or, is this site a way to get those of us who see things differently to spill our real opinions for the snooping government?

      I just refreshed the page and my comment is gone.

    • FiuToYou says:

      onetree:// This happens to me quite a bit on many sites, twenty minutes, or more, of thinking and typing suddenly disappearing. Even with cut and paste, and re-do, same thing. Don’t know why. But with the way things are in the country ANYTHING is possible. Try leaving and doing something else and then going back after an hour or so and checking it again. You can also contact WWW direct and ask them what’s the problem? Link at the bottom here. Good luck.

    • onetree says:

      It’s been two hours and no sign of it. I did make a copy of it and I’m thinking of trying to paste it into a reply to see if that makes a difference.

    • Inshort says:

      What I normally do when a comment of mine disappears is just click on my name — the one in red — and that will take you to the Discus file where all your comments are held in chronological order. The one they are withholding will be listed there (usually at the top) with the notation: Pending.

      When I get really irritated, I sometimes go in, copy the comment from the Discus file and repaste it into the commentary section.

      BUT I don’t like the feeling that comes with this — Big Brother looking over your shoulder: It feels like you’re a quasi-criminal and they are subtly warning you about something of which you know nothing. Very Kafkaesque. Like onetree I’m very reluctant to support sites that make me feel uncomfortable. Why should I?

    • bobjonestwo says:

      You’re right, I too will be ignoring this site from now on due to their censorship of the truth and facts. Disgusted. .

  11. Inshort says:

    I just read Russ Baker’s post from May 23, 2013 — about one month after the event where he opens with remarks to the effect that the Tsarnaev brothers were not innocents, not naifs, and not peacefully inclined. I.e., according to people in Watertown, the brothers were out there in the streets, wielding weapons and engaged in violent activities.

    Is there anywhere a clear, logical, believable narrative about what happened around the Boston Marathon bombings?

    I’m very much convinced that the government pulled off one more false flag event at the 2013 Boston Marathon, but would like to know if I will always be forced to hold that opinion on faith as no clear evidence about what did in fact occur or who did what will ever emerge.

    While I’m convinced that lack of clear evidence, muddled trails and glaring uncertainty are hallmarks of false flag events, the important issue is perhaps not whether we must take Dzokhar’s innocence on faith, but how we as a nation and a people can bring to an end these horrific events.

  12. jane24 says:

    Thanks, Lara. It was particularly disturbing last week to hear of Tsarnaev’s defense practically approving the continued silencing of their client. We learned, (as we might have expected), that Loretta Lynch and Carmen Oritiz will have some input in the decision as to the continued silencing of Tsarnaev and I think there is little doubt as to what their input might be. The ever convenient “in the interests of national security” will be brought out again in an attempt to ensure that the American people remain in ignorance of what actually occurred in the events surrounding the bombing of the Boston Marathon and of the likelihood of the involvement of at least one of their own national security agencies. SAMs are now implemented for reasons far different than those for which it is alleged that such measures were originally intended. (Emphasis on the “alleged.”) When will the majority get wise to this?

    • onetree says:

      I had not researched these SAMs until just now. This whole case has been outrageous from the start, but this situation is completely inappropriate for this individual. In fact, I’m not sure they’d be appropriate in any case.

    • jane24 says:

      The SAMs have played a huge part in silencing the defendant in this case and also in impeding the work of his defense. As above, I do not believe that these measures were implemented in this case for the reasons they would have us believe, and as you, onetree, I would seriously question that such measures are ever appropriate.

  13. FiuToYou says:

    There’s definitely something ‘rotten in Boston’, and that rot is this whole ‘Boston Bomber’ trail, or lack of one. Unfortunately nobody’s going to do anything about it, so that just makes it more bizarre! You’d think, even if the defendant is ‘guilty as hell’ he would at least say something, anything. His defense was ludicrous. In the past, the ACLU, and lots of defense attorneys would be jumping up and down screaming foul. I guess the whole society of ‘free’ people in America are afraid of the powers that be, to remain mute like this. I guess the rise in suicides, and auto accidents has people on edge. Somebody or some organization must put a stop on this lawlessness in the govt before all of George’s predictions come true! (and I’m not talking about G. Washington).

  14. oh_look says:

    Why does your title call him a “Bomber”? There’s really too many questions about this case to be going along with the GOV narrative at this point and calling him such a name.
    To be honest, I’m getting a little tired of how nobody is doing anything to really stop these Gov terror attacks. There is too much evidence of government involvement in Terror attacks on U.S. soil, yet 14 years after 9/11 nobody has been able to indict the real criminals. Now, the Boston Bombing seems to be heading in the same path. I think it was Karl Rove who said once that “they”, meaning the political elite, would be making the policy, while the “rest of the people”, meaning the masses, would be left to debating it. In other words, THEY can do anything they want and the rest of us are merely reduced to talking about it…on blogs, comment boards, etc.

    And why are you calling the Prosecution the “government”? The Defense is also the government. The young man does not have a defense team. He is being defended and prosecuted by the government.

    I’m wondering if there are any good rich people who could get this kid a real lawyer.

    At this point, does everyone understand that the U.S. Government has too much control? If a kid like Jahar can’t honestly be defended, then we are ALL IN TROUBLE, not just him.

    I really think Americans have already lost their nation, but most don’t know it. This kind of case really shows that.

    What is really wild about all this, is that the Gov is really being sloppy about their crimes on U.S. soil, but they don’t seem to care anymore. And they don’t care anymore because nobody is stopping them. They have the entire system sewed up. America has been a great psy-ops for them.

    • FiuToYou says:

      @solar toad:// So well put and soooo true!!!

    • Inshort says:

      Agreed as to the precision of the argument and its veracity. I have trouble reading about this case, but can’t stay away from it, because I, too, am both convinced of the miscarriage of justice and horrified at the way public opinion has been whipped up in Boston to lynch this young man. I cancelled my subscription to the Globe yesterday, totally disgusted by the editor Cullen’s articles about Dzokhar and the way Cullen has managed to ignite the fury of so many. Among hundreds of comments there seems to be not one that is not a raging diatribe against this “monster.” If you want to see how lynch mobs are created, Cullen’s work is a good place to start.

      As the certainty mounts that this is another OKC type false flag, what I want to know is who did it. And why?

      Thanks go to Lara Turner and to whowhatwhy for staying on this. I cannot help also wishing and hoping that some compassionate wealthy American might take an interest in this case, and do something to turn it around. In the meantime, prayer does work, no matter how lame it sounds. It’s about all we can rely on at this point.

    • onetree says:

      Prayer has become a part of my daily life since this trial began.

    • oh_look says:

      I too want to thank WhoWhatWhy and Lara Turner. I still like the article and her writing…I’m just frustrated like a lot of other people who get what’s going on here.

    • oh_look says:

      I’d also like to find out who the red headed convert was that was apparently visiting him, named “Misha”.
      But I’m betting that WWW is on to something regarding possible Tamerlan connections as an informant. The case begins to make much more sense when you look at it that way.

    • disqus_a2SRiKaB1i says:

      He needs an Oligarch.

    • oh_look says:

      What do you mean?

    • disqus_a2SRiKaB1i says:

      Someone to foot the bill for attorneys that are not government paid.

    • oh_look says:

      Ya, that’s for sure!

    • Crime Reporter says:

      Because he’s been convicted. Sucks, but it’s standard.

  15. MarkTenneyNewMathDoneRight says:

    Who is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a harm to communicate with? A terrorist cell in this county that the government knows about? Dzhokhar doesn’t really know terrorists in Russia or in the Middle East. Lots of people are more involved in networks than Dzhokhar is.

    Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is not Omar Abdel-Rahman. Dzhokhar does not lead a group that engages in violence. Dzhokhar doesn’t lead any group. No one is his follower. Thus in contrast to Abdel-Rahman there is no basis of the non communication orders. Moreover, the government has stated there is no group beyond the two Tsarnaevs. So the special admin orders are without any foundation in fact or evidence.

    We can infer that Dzhokhar has information embarrassing to the government. That would likely point to CIA or FBI complicity in the bombs and possibly even more.

    • QuestionsRemain says:

      I agree, it seems the purpose of muzzling Dzhokar is to protect others here on U.S. Soil, perhaps a local terrorist cell and law enforcement handling (mishandling) whatever assets they may have in the purported terrorist cell as it can’t be to protect Dzhokar as Dzhokar does not have much to loose at this point, whether he gets a life sentence or death, either way he’ll be spending the foreseeable future imprisoned… why wouldn’t he talk…or perhaps his attorneys are hoping for a life sentence that they can appeal or that given his young age may one day be commuted. I also think back to former BPD commissioner’s Ed Davis’ slip when during an interview around the time of the man-hunt, he referred to the victims as “Actors” but quickly corrected himself – this could have been an honest slip from a commissioner who has headed training missions but from a seasoned commissioner with ample P.R./t.v. spokesperson time it was odd, non-the-less. It is quite odd that with all the man-power put into this investigation that they supposedly don’t know where or by whom the bombs were made – this is where the idea of muzzling Dzhokar to protect a local terrorist cell or some other person(s) comes into focus. I think there’s more to the cabbie taken into custody at 20 Charlesgate West in Kenmore Sq. the Friday morning of 4/19/13 where a former resident of mid-east origin at this address had allegedly been seen meeting with Mohammed Atta on 9/10, the day before 9/11 “saying goodbye to Atta as though she was never going to see him again”…. in the very spot the cabbie was taken into custody on 4/19/13. The fact that Atta then drove to Portland, ME for unknown or unreported reasons in the vicinity of the Bush family’s Kennebunkport summer home is interesting considering the juxtaposition of Bush having been in a Sarasota school on 9/11 nearby the Sarasota home that allegedly served as the base of operation for Atta and gang. Back to Dzhokar, I’d say his silence is to protect others here in Boston and that his attorneys are hoping for a life sentence that will one day be commuted. I’d also suggest there’s some BPD and MA Army National Guard involvement.

    • onetree says:

      I agree with most of what you say, but not sure why you believe that the silencing of Dzhokhar has to do with any legitimate purpose, such as protecting the public, as if there was any benevolence in the current organization that we call “the government.”

    • QuestionsRemain says:

      Aparently, you misinterpreted something – where do get any “legitimate purpose” interpretation?

    • PatGinSD says:

      This is an FBI coverup of an FBI terror drill gone live. They intended to kill both brothers all along, but were stymied by too much media and citizen coverage. So now they are preventing the public from catching a glimpse of truth from the Defendant. He is totally sealed from anyone who might help him. the “Defense Team” is a total sham that betrayed him and played nice with the Prosecution- just another part of the coverup. Makes no difference to these psychopaths that they have destroyed the lives of 2 innocent brothers and all of their true friends and acquaintances, and have created a Hollywood-style event to further terrorize the American people. There are plenty of folks on the internet that have heavily detailed the many lies, inconsistencies, and preparations by the FBI to orchestrate this Boston Marathon Terror assault on the people of Boston. Some are more credible than others, but all of them have some facts to back them up.

    • Bumble Bee says:

      information regarding who constructed the bombs should have been substantiated by now

    • Inshort says:

      Exactly: The gag orders are to protect the guilty, not Dzokhar. And not us. We need to be protected from the CIA and the FBI, the agencies that have turned the government upside down and against us. After justice for Dzokhar, we need to retake the government.

      And all the speculation about what actually did occur and why Dzokhar has been muzzled are but a replica of the kinds of stuff that have come from attempts to understand 9/11. The idea is to create scenarios, throw out trails of evidence which are abundant, but meaningless, go nowhere, and have one purpose only which is to keep everyone busy. And frustrated. Until we give up. They hope.

    • QuestionsRemain says:

      Keep in mind that the Boston Marathon finish line in the jurisdiction of the Boston Police and on Marathon Day the MA Army National Guard is brought in to assist with security as has been the case for years. This jurisdictional boundary is consistent with my belief that any questioning should start with the Boston Police and the Army National Guard. Then follow along with the JTTF which is directed by the FBI and consists of personnel from a number of agencies, likewise then with the CIA regarding any cell and assets that were under surveillance. Silencing Dzokhar is meant to protect others while his attorneys hope for a life sentence that can be appealed or commuted in the future.

    • disqus_a2SRiKaB1i says:

      when sh** hits the fan, the FBI routinely hides behind the JTTF who is left out of the loop.

    • QuestionsRemain says:

      I believe that as far as the the routine planning of the marathon goes, it being the city of boston’s jurisdiction that the Boston Police (BPD) were in charge of security in Boston with the MA National Guard brought on board to assist, the National Guard has assisted in Marathon security for years. I believe the FBI and JTTF would have played a leadership role only after the bombing took place. Therfore, if anything was known to be amiss before the the bombs detonated, I would start first by looking at the BPD and MA Army National Guard….and not exclude looking closer at the role both the BPD and Natl. Guard may have played….. as opposed to immediately jumping to scrutinizing only the FBI and CIA which it seems many people seem solely to focus on. This incident may not have had the strong international link (defense attys. traveled to Dagestan) that some think. Yes it does seem Tamerlan had his FBI association/informant status & he may have been working for the FBI and/or CIA to include when he visited his homeland, however, I think this incident centers around local issues here in Boston and again, because the BPD with the assistance of the MA Army National has jurisdiction of the marathon finish line, these are the 2 agencies I would start scrutinizing first…..then the FBI and CIA.

    • shishani says:

      We can infer that Dzhokhar has information embarrassing to
      the government. That would likely point to CIA or FBI complicity in the bombs
      and possibly even more.

      That’s why they killed the older brother and they killed
      their friend in Florida.

      Dead men don’t talk.

  16. MarkTenneyNewMathDoneRight says:

    Attorney Lynne Stewart was put in prison for allegedly passing info from a terrorist defendant to others. The alleged aid charge was speculative and not based on proof it caused any harm.

    The lesson is that when it comes to aiding terrorism, speculation by DOJ prosecutors is evidence of guilt. This case has denied the right of self defense against terrorism charges.

    One has to compare all prisoners denied communication compared to the total of proven harm from communication. Then it has to be shown that the denied communication cases can be distinguished from where communication is allowed. There is no such proof. It is all speculation. Constitutional rights should not be stripped, even if prisoners, based on speculation.

Subscribe to the Daily WhoWhatWhy

Relevant, in-depth journalism delivered to you.