Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (820213)	12/2/2014 2:32:39 AM
From: Broken_Clock	Respond to of 1586502

cops lie routinely, murder w/o trial, and skate Shocking new information in Tsarnaev case casts doubt on official story about the killing of Ibragim Todashev Submitted by sosadmin on Tue, 10/28/2014 - 17:46 In a stunning reversal, federal prosecutors claim in an October 2014 court filing that they have “no evidence” to suggest Tamerlan Tsarnaev “participated in” a triple murder in Waltham, Massachusetts in 2011. Officials had previously leaked to the press assertions precisely contrary to the new declaration. The federal government’s new claim comes in response to motions filed by Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s attorneys seeking information from the government about Tamerlan’s participation in the murders. Documents confirming Tamerlan’s involvement in the 2011 murders would help the defense show that the elder Tsarnaev intimidated his younger brother. By claiming to possess “no evidence” that Tamerlan was involved in the slayings, the DOJ might very well succeed in its goal to keep secret records related to the Waltham investigation and sought by the defense. But the reversal also comes at a cost: the federal government’s credibility. The back and forth—first Tamerlan did it, now he didn’t—raises troubling questions about the accuracy of official leaks pertaining to not just the murders, but also the circumstances surrounding the death of a Chechen immigrant at the FBI’s hands in May 2013. It also shines a spotlight on the media’s now common practice of granting federal officials anonymity to discuss important events, and shows how that practice enables the propagation of unreliable information meant to shape narratives favorable to the government. Those narratives, while perhaps helpful to federal agencies, are not always accurate. Some background is required. A few weeks after the April 15, 2013 Boston marathon bombings, ABC News published a shocking report linking bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his little brother to an unsolved, grisly triple murder in 2011 in Waltham. Local reporter Michele McPhee, whose publication of anonymous law enforcement leaks about the case is the subject of controversy in the Dzhokhar Tsarnaev trial, produced the scoop: Massachusetts investigators have developed what they call "mounting evidence," bolstered by "forensic hits," that points to the possible involvement of both Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar in a gruesome, unsolved triple homicide in 2011, law enforcement officials told ABC News. Not only was there possible DNA evidence linking the Tsarnaevs to the crime scene, ABC News reported. Officials also said they possessed cell phone location records tying the brothers to the crime. [L]aw enforcement officials tell ABC News that some crime scene forensic evidence provided a match to the two Tsarnaev brothers. The officials also said records of cell phones used by the Tsarnaevs appear[] to put them in the area of the murders on that date. Several officials confirmed the new findings but declined to be identified because they are not authorized to comment on the ongoing investigation. “Several officials confirmed” these “findings” to McPhee in early May 2013, weeks after the marathon bombings shook the city and the nation. The revelation about Tamerlan’s involvement with the triple murder in 2011 was stunning. And there would be further shockers just around the corner. Just a little over a week after McPhee’s ABC News piece was published on May 10, the country woke up to yet more startling news: Overnight, an FBI agent from the Boston office and two Massachusetts State Police officials had interrogated and shot dead an alleged associate of Tamerlan Tsarnaev in his Orlando, Florida apartment. Ibragim Todashev, “federal officials” said, was under investigation for participating in the 2011 Waltham murders with the elder Tsarnaev. The Orlando Sentinel: Todashev, a 27-year-old mixed-martial-arts fighter, was being questioned about a 2011 triple slaying in Waltham, Mass., federal-law-enforcement sources told the Tribune Washington bureau. Federal officials think he and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the suspected Boston bombers, may have had a role in cutting the throats of three men and sprinkling marijuana over their bodies. One of the three Waltham victims, Brendan H. Mess, was described as a close friend of Tsarnaev's. Later, government reports would claim that FBI agent Aaron McFarlaneand Massachusetts State Troopers Curtis Cinelli and Joel Gagne (whose names were redacted from official documents but extracted by independent researchers) went down to Florida in order to interrogate Todashev about his possible links to the Waltham murders. Those official reports claim that Todashev was in the process of signing a confession implicating himself and Tamerlan Tsarnaev in the triple murder when he suddenly attacked one of the troopers, provoking FBI agent McFarlane to shoot him dead. Journalist Susan Zalkind later obtained an unredacted copy of this supposed “confession.” It is stained with blood and appears to read: My name is IBRAGIM TODASHEV. I wanna tell the story about the robbery me and Tam did in Waltham in September of 2011. That was [?] by Tamerlan. [?] [?] he [?] to me to rob the drug dealers. We went to their house we got in there and Tam had a gun he pointed it [?] the guy that opened the door for us [?] we went upstairs into the house [?] 3 guys in there [?] we put them on the ground and then we [?] [?] taped their hands up After killing Todashev and claiming that he was in the middle of confessing to a triple murder when he was shot, federal officials proceeded to round up and arrest or deport a number of his friends, including his girlfriend. In later interviews, his girlfriend denied that Todashev had anything to do with the 2011 murders. Over a year later, in October 2014, one of the few people who knew Todashev and remains in the United States, his former mother in law, appeared outside the Boston federal courthouse where the Tsarnaev trial was in session. She held a sign with a photograph of Todashev on it, reading “I am dead because I knew Tsarnaevs. I knew the truth.” The federal government appears to want it both ways, leaking to the press over and over again that Tamerlan Tsarnaev was involved in the Waltham murders, and then, when it suits them, turning around in court and saying the exact opposite. Thania DiazClevenger, Civil Rights Director for Florida’s chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), is incredulous, raising important questions: The recent revelation that the government has no evidence linking Tsarnaev to the Waltham murders reinforces that the government account regarding the circumstances surrounding the killing of Ibragim Todashev cannot be trusted. It contradicts the original reason given for the questioning of Ibragim. It raises the question of why Ibragim Todashev was questioned by the FBI to begin with and whether the alleged confession by Ibragim was coerced or a pretext used to harm Ibragim's reputation in order to justify the FBI shooting. CAIR-Florida says it is preparing legal action “to seek justice for the family of Ibragim Todashev.” An ongoing ACLU of Massachusetts lawsuitagainst US Attorney Carmen Ortiz aims to produce information from the DOJ about Ibrahim Todashev, including copies of portions of his interrogation that Massachusetts State Police officials reportedly video- and audiotaped. But even if we never learn anything more about what happened in Orlando in May 2013, the US Attorney’s recent court filing makes one thing clear: Either agents of the federal government misstated the facts in leaks to the public, or the US Attorney is now misstating the facts to a federal judge. It’s difficult to imagine how the anonymous, official leaks to the press about Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s alleged involvement in the Waltham murders could have been true if Ortiz’ recent claim—that the feds have “no evidence” implicating Tsarnaev—is also true. First the feds told reporters they had “mounting,” “forensic” evidence, including cell phone location records, tying Tamerlan to those killings. Now the feds say they have nothing. It’s not the first time the prosecution against Tsarnaev has issued a bombshell in court, directly contradicting things law enforcement had leaked to the press and that became the given narrative of events. After the bombings, officials told journalists that the brothers built the bombs inside Tamerlan’s Cambridge apartment. The anonymous law enforcement officials who leaked these claims even provided specific details about that supposed evidence. The following year, Carmen Ortiz would file a brief in the Tsarnaev case asserting the exact opposite: The feds are sure the bombs were not built at the Cambridge apartment, the motion says. The public is getting taken for a ride. Perhaps instead of aggressively prosecuting stoner teenagers who the FBI itself admits had nothing to do with the marathon bombings, federal law enforcement should get its house in order. Selling the public a simple narrative and then turning around and demolishing it in court provides the makings for a good screenplay about FBI and DOJ incompetence. But it’s not how the federal government should be conducting itself in the nation’s highest profile terrorism investigation since 9/11. The victims of the Waltham murders and the Boston marathon bombings—and the public—deserve the truth. Based off the federal government’s own statements alone, it’s impossible to know what that is.

To: i-node who wrote (820213)	12/2/2014 3:29:52 AM
From: FJB	1 Recommendation Recommended By D.Austin Respond to of 1586502

Chris Rock Stopped Performing for Students Because Everything Offends Them Reason.com Full Feed by Robby Soave There's plenty to dissect in Frank Rich's comprehensive interview with Chris Rock. The comedian covers everything from Bill Cosby (he hopes the allegations are false) to the federal bailout of the auto industry (he was against it). I found Rock's remarks about why he no longer performs at college campuses most illuminating: What do you make of the attempt to bar Bill Maher from speaking at Berkeley for his riff on Muslims? Well, I love Bill, but I stopped playing colleges, and the reason is because they’re way too conservative. In their political views? Not in their political views — not like they’re voting Republican — but in their social views and their willingness not to offend anybody. Kids raised on a culture of “We’re not going to keep score in the game because we don’t want anybody to lose.” Or just ignoring race to a fault. You can’t say “the black kid over there.” No, it’s “the guy with the red shoes.” You can’t even be offensive on your way to being inoffensive. When did you start to notice this? About eight years ago. Probably a couple of tours ago. It was just like, This is not as much fun as it used to be. I remember talking to George Carlin before he died and him saying the exact same thing. Provocative comedians avoiding the college scene? The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education's Susan Kruth explains why this is a lamentable development: Just as college campuses are meant to be “ marketplaces of ideas” generally, they should be places where comedians and other performers are especially able to play with new acts. It’s disappointing to see that this is not so, and that the atmosphere for freedom of speech and comedy in particular on campuses has gotten bad enough that noted comedians are avoiding student audiences altogether. That is a real loss for them—after all, everybody could use a laugh. Anyone who thinks that there are no consequences for trigger warnings, speech codes, free speech zones, crackdowns on taco night, or general feelings-protection at the modern American university should consider Rock's comments. University administrators are teaching students that it is proper for them to crave insulation from contrarianism and controversy. The result is a kind of de facto censorship, where someone like Rock—a worthwhile speaker, whether one agrees with him or not—has little incentive to share his perspective. What better way is there to drain universities of their intellectual potency than to dissuade all interesting people from setting foot on a college campus?

To: i-node who wrote (820213)	12/2/2014 3:36:12 AM
From: FJB	2 Recommendations Recommended By D.Austin locogringo Respond to of 1586502

Who Benefits From the Ferguson Riots? by Thomas Sowell Everyone seems to have an opinion about the tragic events in Ferguson, Missouri. But, as Daniel Patrick Moynihan used to say, “You’re entitled to your own opinion but you’re not entitled to your own facts.” Soon after the shooting death of Michael Brown, this 285-pound young man was depicted as a “gentle giant.” But, after a video was leaked, showing him bullying the owner of a store from which he had stolen some merchandise, Attorney General Eric Holder expressed displeasure that the video was leaked. In other words, to Holder the truth was offensive, but the lie it exposed was not. Many people who claimed to have been eyewitnesses to the fatal shooting gave opposite accounts of what happened. Some even gave accounts that contradicted what they themselves had said earlier. Fortunately, the grand jury did not have to rely on such statements, though some in the media seemed to. What the grand jury had, that the rest of us did not have until the grand jury’s decision was announced, was a set of physical facts that told a story that was independent of what anybody said. Three different medical forensic experts — one representing Michael Brown’s parents — examined the physical facts. These facts included the autopsy results, Michael Brown’s DNA on the door of the police car and on the policeman’s gun, photographs of the bruised and swollen face of policeman Darren Wilson and the pattern of blood stains on the street where Brown was shot. This physical evidence was hard to square with the loudly proclaimed assertions that Brown was shot in the back, or was shot with his hands up, while trying to surrender. But it was consistent with the policeman’s testimony. Moreover, the physical facts were consistent with what a number of black witnesses said under oath, despite expressing fears for their own safety for contradicting what those in the rampaging mobs were saying. The riots, looting and setting things on fire that some in the media are treating as reactions to the grand jury’s decision not to indict the policeman, actually began long before the grand jury had begun its investigation, much less announced any decision. Why some people insist on believing whatever they want to believe is a question that is hard to answer. But a more important question is: What are the consequences to be expected from an orgy of anarchy that started in Ferguson, Missouri and has spread around the country? The first victims of the mob rampages in Ferguson have been people who had nothing to do with Michael Brown or the police. These include people — many of them black or members of other minorities — who have seen the businesses they worked to build destroyed, perhaps never to be revived. But these are only the first victims. If the history of other communities ravaged by riots in years past is any indication, there are blacks yet unborn who will be paying the price of these riots for years to come. Sometimes it is a particular neighborhood that never recovers, and sometimes it is a whole city. Detroit is a classic example. It had the worst riot of the 1960s, with 43 deaths — 33 of them black people. Businesses left Detroit, taking with them jobs and taxes that were very much needed to keep the city viable. Middle class people — both black and white — also fled. Harlem was one of many ghettos across the country that have still not recovered from the riots of the 1960s. In later years, a niece of mine, who had grown up in the same Harlem tenement where I grew up years earlier, bitterly complained about how few stores and other businesses there were in the neighborhood. There were plenty of stores in that same neighborhood when I was growing up, as well as a dentist, a pharmacist and an optician, all less than a block away. But that was before the neighborhood was swept by riots. Who benefits from the Ferguson riots? The biggest beneficiaries are politicians and racial demagogues. In Detroit, Mayor Coleman Young was one of many political demagogues who were able to ensure their own reelection, using rhetoric and policies that drove away people who provided jobs and taxes, but who were likely to vote against him if they stayed.<span style="font-size:1.3em;"> Such demagogues thrived as Detroit became a wasteland.</span>