Boston Bombing News: Protecting the Propagandists?
It is undeniable that in all “terrorist” cases, (and most particularly those that are termed “Muslim terrorist” cases), government propaganda plays a most prominent role. The use of such propaganda has been evident in the case of US v Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and indeed in the cases of Tsarnaev’s former friends and acquaintances.
With regard to the Tsarnaev brothers, this propaganda began with the FBI’s assertion that no other suspects should be considered once they had, (remarkably quickly), identified Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as the perpetrators of the bombing of the Boston Marathon. This, with the full cooperation of the mainstream media, was followed by an overt campaign of “character assassination” with the seeming object of demonizing the entire Tsarnaev family.
One of the most disturbing forms, however, in which this propaganda has manifested itself has been the alleged “leaks”, purportedly originating from law enforcement, of “case information” to the media. At least some of this so-called “information” has turned out to be false or inaccurate. (The varying content of the infamous “boat note” and the announcement of the presence of explosives residue in Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s apartment which was later denied in court filings are but two examples.)
The government/prosecution obviously place a high level of importance on the use of propaganda to “prove their case” before any trial has properly begun. Could this be attributed to a lack of any real or conclusive evidence or even a false narrative?
How far will the government go in order to protect their propagandists?
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s defense attorneys have filed three motions requesting a hearing to address the issue of “leaks” originating with law enforcement. It was suggested that the source of these “leaks” should be identified. Judge O’Toole denied all three of these motions and despite expressing his displeasure took no firm action to address or prevent further “leaks.” Does this not suggest that not only is the presiding judge biased in favor of the government but also that he seeks to protect the government’s propagandists?
Further evidence of the government’s intent to protect their propagandists has also come to light in the case of Khairullozhon Matanov which is yet another plagued by inappropriate “leaks” allegedly via le. Karin Friedemann is a regular correspondent for “The Muslim Observer.” This entry on Karin’s blogspot, (and also at “New Trend Magazine”), was recently brought to my attention:
The eleventh paragraph describes how the government has made the withdrawal of a motion filed by Matanov’s defense attorney, Paul Glickman, a condition necessary to Matanov obtaining a plea deal and thereby a reduced sentence. If this is true, (and I have no reason to suspect otherwise), it would seem that the government is prepared to go to great lengths to protect their propagandists. More importantly, just who is the government protecting?