Winter Patriot Community Blog

First up, the FBI, "the administration" and CNN are all documented liars. One must then start from the assumption that they are likely lying in everything they say. And given that all the sources are unnamed, that makes it a certainty that it is all bullshit.

"Zazi and his father, Muhammad Zazi, were handcuffed without incident as authorities raided Zazi's home in the Denver suburb of Aurora, CNN's Jim Spellman reported from the scene."

It sounds like Spellman (great name for a teevee presenter) was at the scene when the arrests were made. This means that the FBI informed CNN beforehand and wanted CNN there for the story. SO the 'story' is the story i.e. it's all a piece of theatre for the punters in Teeveeland.

"There is no word on what charges both men face."

No charges were laid. This means they didn't have any credible evidence . . . . yet. They need to get it from Zazi. They need to trick Zazi into incriminating himself and others.

"Two more arrests are expected in New York City, a source close to the investigation told CNN."

If they had evidence, the arrests would have already been made. (Why warn 'em?). This is just setting up some credibility for following statements about 'attacks' in NY.

"One of the individuals interviewed several times by authorities is cooperating, the source said."

This is to impress that the FBI is not wasting its time because the 'individual' was 'cooperating'. But, again, if they had credible evidence (yet) they would have pressed charges already.

"Zazi's arrest comes after three days of questioning by the FBI. Zazi declined to attend a fourth day of interviews, his attorney's publicist said."

"three days of questioning"! Wow, they really did have zip to go on. Needless to say, Zazi should have declined on the first day . . . the first minute.

"Zazi has admitted to having ties to al Qaeda, an administration official familiar with the matter told CNN on Friday."

"The administration", presumably this means the federal government which means this is political from the start. Nevermind that al Qaeda is an 'in house' operation.

"The alleged terrorist plot, which came to light this week after raids in New York, (no charges therefore no evidence) may have been targeting a major transportation center, like a large railroad or subway station, sources close to the investigation told CNN on Thursday."

The FBI haven't got their story straight yet so they need to keep it nonspecific.

"There were plans for an attack, presumably in the New York area, where crowds are large and security screening for nonairport travelers is lax, the sources said"

Here we come to the possible point of this little screenplay - searching bags (then persons) at nonairport transit points thereby conditioning a wider section of the population to arbitrary searches; conditioning people to become passive in the face of aggression and think of themselves as possible criminals. New York ties it nicely to 9/11

"On Wednesday, federal agents searched Zazi's apartment in Denver and another home in a Denver suburb in connection with the investigation."

But no charges laid. Therefore, they found no credible or strong evidence.

"A law enforcement official told CNN that diagrams showing how to make bombs were found on the computer that Zazi had with him when he was stopped in New York during a recent visit, but his lawyer, Arthur Folsom, denied that was true."

A diagram (which could be anything). . . but no instructions. Again, no charges.

"Update: Charged with making false statements to the feds"

Again, no charges (am I getting repetitive?) except for "making false statements". If Zazi had refused to talk with the FBI at the very beginning, he would not now be facing these charges. Moral; don't talk to the Fuzz . . . ever.

You're welcome, NJT. Just my thoughts, for what they're worth.
There's another point which follows on from the "Charging at Windmills" essay; there's a lawyer involved here. Hopefully for Mr. Zazi, he wasn't engaged during the 'three days of questioning' and thus going along with it.
It is also common practice for lawyers and other individuals like retired police officers to pop up out of the blue to "help" victims of coordinated attacks from the system (SWATs). At first the victims can't believe their good luck. Latter they can't believe their bad luck. Hopefully, again, Mr Zazi's lawyer is not working for the other side.

In these situations, one needs to be extremely careful of one's allies. They can do far more harm to you than your obvious enemies.

Mr Zazi would be well advised to get copies of all the relevent laws pertaining to any charges that have and will be laid against him. The laws may not apply and, if they do, they will suggest a course of defence. It has been my experience (and I have read it of others) that lawyers routinely don't do this, believe it or not. We saw this happen in Clare Swinney's case, for instance.

Another thing he could (should) do is get a list of relevent cases showing favorable interpretations of these laws. He can ask his lawyer to provide these for him. If the lawyer doesn't do this, Mr Zazi needs to get another lawyer. If his lawyer does do this, then he has been put on notice that he will have to perform and presumably this will force the lawyer to at least read the relevent laws and judgements. It is common practice for neither of these things to happen.

It is also common practice in these cases for the presiding judge to be 'on the team'. At the first indication of this, the case should be conducted in a way to set up as many points for a latter appeal as possible. Plan ahead and have a strategy and never rely on any one person 'doing the right thing'; have Plan B ready.
As stressful as these things are, the thinking needs to be like this is just a game of checkers, albeit, a serious one.

if so, read this story :
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091009/ap_on_re_eu/eu_nobel_peace