Thursday, February 16, 2012

Annoying treatment

Today was............stressful. A relief. Perplexing.

Kurt & I attended the sentencing of Umar. We were allowed to give victim impact statements. We arrived about 30 minutes early, and I got to meet the three other passengers who were there. One was the flight attendant who put the fire out. So, it was amazing to get to thank the person who saved my life in person. VERY nice guy. His story is really sad. He loved flying around the world as a flight attendant, and now he dreads going into work every day. He broke down in tears and had to leave the courtroom after speaking.

Kurt gave his speech, which is posted below, and it was pretty anti-Federal government. Anyway, I was the last passenger to speak. Before I could speak, while Kurt was walking back to his seat, the Judge actually said something to the affect of "Ms Haskell, do you have something to say different than what Mr. Haskell is reporting about conspiracy theories and the government?" I told her my statement was not the same as Kurt's, and I was allowed to speak. However, I was wondering, is the Judge going to censor my statement? She in essence was saying that she did not want me to make a statement like Kurt's. Which, quite frankly, pissed me off. Do I agree 100% with Kurt? Yes. Am I the same person as Kurt. No. Should I be not allowed to speak and be spoken to in that manner because I am married to Kurt? Absolutely not. Obviously, the Judge in the case has no interest in the idea that the government may do anything dishonest, but she does NOT have the right to censor me simply because I am married to Kurt. Umar sits in court, every time, talking about killing americans and the like, but I can't say anything if it supports my husband? The Judge treated Umar with nothing but respect, but I get treated in a snotty, condescending way. Really, really stupid. Again, the victims being treated as criminals instead of as victims. That's how we were treated when the plane landed, and that's how I feel again today. Ridiculous.

I was happy that Umar was sentenced to life in prison with no possibility of parole. even though I believe Umar is a patsy, I do believe that he wanted to kill us all, and I could see throughout all of this that he is not remorseful at all, and I don't think he has a chance of being rehabilitated.

My favorite part of the hearing was when Umar addressed Kurt and said "Mr. Haskell, I am not a patty!" (in reference to something Kurt said to him during his statement).

Anyway, glad to close that chapter of my life. Hope everyone else had a less drama filled afternoon. :).


Rob Switzer said...


I'm a new local attorney (also in Taylor!) who got a chance to briefly meet you at the last Downriver Bar Xmas party (and who just the other day e-mailed you!), and I was blown away to just today find out that you and Kurt were on that airplane. I'm so sorry for both of you.

Anyway, I quenched my curiosity/fascination today by spending a while watching videos of Kurt talking about this, reading his impact statement, and so on.

Obviously, something out of the ordinary was afoot here, and the government was involved. But I'm wondering: Have you considered that this isn't really a government-engineered "conspiracy theory" in the sense that it was done to help achieve policy ends, but rather was another case of the FBI assisting in the near-completion of a terrorist plot, just for "law enforcement" purposes?

This has in fact happened many times, as blogger Glenn Greenwald has documented. See this article:

This excerpt says it all: "Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out — only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI."

Of course, cops do this kind of thing all the time, kind of like in the "To Catch a Predator" stings. They find someone likely to committ a certain crime, and then do everything in their power to help them get as close as possible to committing that crime without anyone actually being harmed. The person is then charged with attempting that crime, and factual impossibility not being a defense, they have the guy dead to rights.

If that's what happened with Mutallab, it is indeed a particularly heinous example of this "law enforcement" tactic.

In any case, I applaud you and Kurt for speaking your mind on this. That takes some real courage.

Lori Haskell said...

Hey Rob, Kurt Haskell here:

That is exactly what I think happened. The problem is they took it too far for propaganda purposes. The FBI could have arrested Umar as soon as he attempted to board with their defective bomb. That wasn't enough though. The FBI wanted a true propaganda terrorist attack over Detroit on Christmas. It needed to be a failed attack so that the government would have a reason for widespread use of the bodyscanners. If it was a successful attack, the plane would have blown up and nobody would have known that the bomb was in his underwear. The fact that we were used as pawns really pisses me off. Plus, for propaganda reasons, an attack over Detroit on Christmas is much more newsworthy than a failed attack in an Amsterdam airport. One would justify widespread policy changes and one wouldn't.

Lori Haskell said...

Hey Rob, thanks for posting and for the email! Kurt responded above to your questions.......

Fisher said...

"The judge does NOT have the right to censor me simply because I am married to Kurt", you say.

Well, if that's the case, then why didn't you make that clear to the judge at the time she asked you if you would say what your husband said? I find it kind of strange that you wouldn't have said, "Your honor, you don't have the right to censor me" and then cited the law which shows that she couldn't censor you. Further, I can't understand why this fact that the judge abused her authority doesn't give you the right to call for a mistrial.

Or do you just want to forget about this?

Lori Haskell said...

I wish I would have done that. however, I was really upset already from things going on around me. I was really emotional from being in the court, seeing UMAR again, hearing the other statements and quite frankly, her behavior shocked me. And yes, I do *want* to forget this, but it's not like I ever will and we will continue to talk about it.

Anonymous said...

Hey Kurt and Lori, native Michigander here and I've been following your story from day one and I thank you for standing strong and not once wavering in stating what you saw. I was wondering if you would like to tell your story to millions of internet users across the world. A couple of us were discussing this case today and your impact statement was the main subject. Judging from your blog you guys were just living your life having fun and this was thrust upon you and it can happen to any one of us. That's why I think your story is important to tell. If you're interested check out the site

The users ask the questions and you choose what you want to answer. I hope you can find the time to do it

TomT said...

I hear ya on so many issues.

On the part of the Judge, she is naive and also certainly uneducated about the many proven historical events when our government conspired to dupe the American people with a covert operation.

On another rant, I am also ticked off at the deliberate perversion of facts by the Associated Press reporter, Ed White. Previously, Ed White had altered Kurt's statements, and now on this story he omitted Kurt's statement and inserted ""...Because he was a passenger, Detroit-area lawyer Kurt Haskell was allowed to publicly repeat his wild claim that the U.S. government outfitted Abdulmutallab with a defective bomb partly to force the rollout of body-imaging machines at airports....".

It is people like the Judge and Ed White who actually help to destroy this country with their willfully ignorant actions.

Thank you and Kurt for all you do.

Rob Switzer said...

Thanks for the response. See, I'm not 100% convinced that this was done to justify policy goals. I'm not necessarily saying it wasn't, just that I have doubts over how provable that is.

And of course this was taken way too far. They really went overboard by letting the guy onto the plane. I understand that setting up wannabe terrorists MIGHT be a legitimate law enforcement tactic, but you do NOT allow one to get onto a plane, thereby endangering and terrifying so many innocent people.

It just seems perfectly plausible to me that this was little more than an example of cops doing what they do: Helping a criminal attempt to commit a crime, and then catching them so they can make a big arrest and flaunt how effective they are at stopping crimes. Some FBI agent might have thought this was going to make his career: He stopped the underwear bomber! Give him a promotion! I think this might also explain why someone would want a more newsworthy event, so it looks more like they stopped the next Bin Laden.

But clearly, someone messed up by letting Umar get so far. Bad. And should be fired, if not put in jail, given the pain they have caused.

And that seems to me a plausible reason for the coverup: To protect somebody's job, and obviously to protect the government from scrutiny and/or liability for messing up this badly.

Ultimately, I think making the jump to policy-driven conspiracy makes you really vulnerable to attack in the way the above poster notes.

But I understand why you're compelled to make that argument, and I in no way intend to ridicule you in the way some others have. Clearly, the federal government helped this guy do what he did so they could catch him in the act, just as they have many times in the past.

TSchoeppel said...

I've been looking for the report Kurt was talking about in his interview on AJ Nightly News (Obamas Bipartisan Commission on the Economy). Actually, I've found the report, but it wasn't summed up like Kurt stated during interview and would love to see it. If you could post a link or have a suggestion that'd be great.

many thanks,

Traci Schoeppel

MonsieurMadeleine said...

Hi, I do not live in Taylor and have not met either of you. I was just introduced to this shocking turn of events by reading a blog that picked it up: Gary North's Tea Party Economist, so I am sorry if butting in as a complete outsider from the internet on the family's personal blog is perceived as impolitic.

Now I will proceed to butt in : )

"a government-engineered "conspiracy theory" in the sense that it was done to help achieve policy ends,"

This excerpt says it all: "Time and again, the FBI concocts a Terrorist attack, infiltrates Muslim communities in order to find recruits, persuades them to perpetrate the attack, supplies them with the money, weapons and know-how they need to carry it out — only to heroically jump in at the last moment, arrest the would-be perpetrators whom the FBI converted, and save a grateful nation from the plot manufactured by the FBI."

Definition of Conspiracy- 1. A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. 2. The action of plotting or conspiring

Did the government make a secret plan? Yes

Did they do something unlawful or harmful? I would like to hear the argument of how putting a known terrorist on a plane is not unlawful or harmful, even if done under the auspice of capturing an accomplice.

If it was indeed to capture an accomplice, then I would expect the government to be transparent and release the files and show how the operation aided in that. The only accomplice I see is our own government aiding him in bypassing security procedures. However, I highly doubt there was an accomplice, since he acted completely alone (besides of course the government's aid to him).

Furthermore, if there was to be an accomplice, where was he? On the plane? No. How could letting this man light his pants on fire possibly help them find an accomplice on the ground in America?

As per entrapment purposes, they clearly had a man with a bomb strapped to him and intent on blowing up a plane in their custody in an airport. He was already 'entrapped.' There was no legitimate purpose to allow him to continue.

What has the relative success of the underwear bomber being able to light his pants on fire actually accomplished that we can prove? What were the real consequences? It has been one of the major, if not the most major, reasons anti civil liberties policies in this country have been passed and approved since 9/11. The media covered it extensively. It has had a severe impact on the public policy of this country. To disregard that impact is folly. It was the main reason for the billions spent on full body scanners and the procedural pat downs of elderly and children.

As for the harm it caused? I think it is pretty clear from a cursory reading of this blog the harm it has caused this family and others.

And judging from Kurt's statements, none of this could have happened without our own government foiling their own security protocol. There never would have been an underwear bomber.

MonsieurMadeleine said...

"Ultimately, I think making the jump to policy-driven conspiracy makes you really vulnerable to attack in the way the above poster notes."

Ask yourself what the real world consequences of the underwear bomber are. Was there a policy change that you can point to?

TomT said...

Rob Switzer,

You have some very good points. However, there are a myriad of details and little incidents which have occurred along the way which absolutely build a concrete foundation to Kurt's statement. I have been following this at every step, and Kurt is spot on.

This event goes deep. It is tough to confront when the implications are dark.

I think that if you thoroughly study the full timeline of incidents in detail, you will see that Kurt is spot on.

As an example: This Ed Asner 15 minute, factual (no theory) video is something which most Americans are unaware of, and the implications are dark.

Best, TomT

Lori Haskell said...

Traci, Kurt Haskell here:

I first read about the report on Karl Denninger's website. Here is the link:

Traci said...

thanks so much for getting back to me. I've followed this story and wish more people were aware of alot of things going on. But like you said in your interview that after the NDAA was passed and Americans just acted like no biggy, you realize just how much trouble we are truly in. I don't blame you for starting over in another place, I'd do the same if my husband didn't have serious neurodegeneration issues. Luckily you and your wife have each other and I believe there are pretty big expat groups in areas you've discussed.
Best of luck to you and your wife (dogs too-love photos), as smart as you are, you will be fine....

Rudy said...


I think I was able to leave the comment below at another entry in this blog, but I'm not sure it went through. I don't write a blog, and am not entirely clear on how they work. In any case, my comment might also be appropriate here. Thank you.

The other comment:

Every government initiative of significance since 9/11, both domestic and foreign, ultimately appeals to the events of 9/11 for justification. Without those events the agenda of fear that has been orchestrated could not have been implemented. That 9/11 could have been carried out by a ruthless band who lived in caves in a far off lawless land characterized by mystery and intrigue is preposterous, especially since application of the scientific method to widely available observable evidence establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that controlled demolition brought down the three buildings that were destroyed in New York that day. Nevertheless, even though the official version of 9/11 requires acceptance that temporary suspension of the laws of physics accounts for the collapse of Building 7, the propaganda machine has forged it into dogma, the purpose of which is population manipulation and control as part of the government effort to expand and secure power.

The various foiled ‘terrorist plots’ are a continuing aspect of the program.

Anonymous said...

Way to go!!! Just saw your youtube video. I believe you! I think people wish to stay in denial rather than refuse to fly-seems they will put up w/ anything-any amount of insanity or abuse if there is something they want to get out of it. Will it take mass cancer cases from the scanners to do this probably more than that and when they finally wake up they will wish they had listened to you fully now. I call this another case of evil greedy corporate politics to make $$$.

Thank U for being whistleblowers where one is needed and for standing up in a land full of "chicken sheep". Thank you for being awake!

Jennifer P

Damon Fiandt said...

I find it interesting that you write that the flight attendant who put out the fire saved your life. Unless Umar was carrying an exploding bridge detonator your life was never at risk, as the explosive cannot be detonated with a fricking match. Surely you have come across the piece of information by now, right?