Tuesday, January 12, 2016

CSIS was involved with Nuttall Entrapment Case



The Vancouver Province is reporting that the judge granted the media's application to see the transcript of what went on in Monday's in camera court session where they kicked the public out. Nobody wants to know the names of the CSIS agents but everyone needs to know what they did especially after Air India.

So once again, this is just the transcript from Monday's closed door session. We are still waiting for the release of the legal opinion the RCMP received during their entrapment of two Surrey drug addicts in a ridiculous plot they were incapable of carrying out. It comes as no surprise to discover that CSIS was involved. Again. We still need to charge CSIS with murder for providing the explosives for the Air India bombing. It's somewhat bizarre those charges have not yet been laid.

Sadly, CSIS will not obey this court order. Instead they will destroy any incriminating evidence again. On June 21, 1984, CSIS was created by an Act of Parliament. On 22 June 1985 CSIS successfully orchestrated it's first terrorist attack. They are the ones that provided the explosives. They had a handler that helped plan the attack. Ted Finn was Director when 156 wiretaps related to the Air India bombing were erased. Right after the bombing they erased all the wire taps of their handler that implicated them.In 1989 CSIS founded the Heritage Front through Grant Bristow.

Now CSIS "loses" a billion dollars from their budget every year. That's not how much they use, that's how much they lose. That's the money they can't account for. If you or I stole a billion dollars every year, we'd go to jail. Consequently the real enemy is the enemy from within.

8 comments:

  1. Hey Dennis, can you please provide info on how the RCMP and CSIS ever got involved with these two?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Which two? Air India and the Heritage Front? Air India was reported by the RCMP and the CBC. They had a handler that helped plan the attack and provided the explosives. This is the CBC documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rv9ghqpa4A

      Surjan Singh Gill was the CSIS handler that provided the explosives:
      http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/backgrounder/airindia/suspects_interact.swf

      This link confirms the CBC report that CSIS erased all the wire taps after the bombing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Finn

      Delete
    2. CSIS' involvement with the Heritage Front is old news. It was reorted in the Toronto Sun back in 1994. Grant Bristow had been working as a CSIS agent for over 6 years and helped found the Neo Nazi organization.
      http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/canadian/league-for-human-rights/heritage-front/csis.html

      Delete
  2. how the hell do you loose a Billion dollars a year? The federal government requires all departments to keep close track of the money it spends. CISIS ought not to be any different. If they can't account for the money being spent, then I'd consider it stolen. A billion $ a year would certainly go a long way to improve social programs in Canada. Gee the Vets could have used it. It could have provided clean running water on reserves. it could have been applied to affordable housing in Canada. the list goes on. No one Looses a billion $ a year. Not even the B.C. Lieberals "loose" than much, waste it yes, but loose it no. that is just a whole different level of stupid.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of the links to all the numbers have been removed from the Internet. Between 2001 and 2009 they spent $12.9 billion on anti terrorism. They lost $3.1 billion of that amount. All the other numbers I have to find again because they have been censored. However you are quite right, just like the billion dollar spy palace, that money could be spent on other things:
      http://gangstersout.blogspot.ca/2014/09/how-much-does-csec-know-about-your.html

      Delete
  3. You don't lose it, you "lose" it.

    Basically it's "black" or "non-attributable" funds that can be spent for stuff they don't want too much oversight on. Payments for a source you don't want anyone but his (or her) handler to know who they are for reasons of security for instance. If the opposition finds out who they are, they're dead. Look how many people who were spying for the west against the USSR were betrayed because John Walker or Robert Hanssen had access to information that indicated their existence. The correct answer is dozens/almost all of them. Reports, lists of code names, records of payments or bank accounts, all these things will help a decent counterintelligence organization very quickly identify their opponents sources of information inside their own organization. So there are valid reasons in the intelligence world not to account for or record everything.

    "Need to know" is a basic cornerstone of intelligence and security work, and for good reason, there is no other basic procedure/rule which is so effective at limiting who knows about something. The more who know, the less likely it will remain a secret, and the harder it is to figure out who gave the game away when, not if, that happens.

    The corollary to this is, the type of personality that is suitable for intelligence work, (and just humans in general) given ample opportunity and no oversight will often abuse their authority to get involved in things they shouldn't be. At the same time someone who's not capable of that is no good for operations work, because that's basically what you've hired and trained them to do. You just hope they don't go too far off the reservation. Various aspects of such things as CIA employee involvement in the drug trade are an excellent example of this, and when they do stray, who knows about it? This is all secret work, right? And of course sometimes the directives come right from the top, witness the ATF "Fast and Furious" program. The public has been conned into believing that it was just an attempt to track weapons movement across the border, and some of the agents responsible for implementing it on the ground may even have believed that, but only really stupid ones. An idiot could figure out there's no effective way to do that. So what's left, guns for drugs? Sounds plausible until you consider that a $500 gun isn't worth much in coke, even at double or triple the value south of the border.

    The real answer is, it was conceived as a way to make sure weapons from the US were recovered in Mexico, pointing to the "need" to further restrict sales of such in the US. The media and "progressives" like to bleat about how the US supplies the cartels with all their weapons to advance their domestic gun control agenda. They saw no problem with actually doing that themselves to "prove" their assertion, when the reality is that only 30% of the firearms recovered in Mexico came from up north. More come in from Hondura's, Guatemala, El Salvador and Nicaragua, all places where, ironically, civilian ownership of firearms is severely restricted if not outright prohibited.

    Back to CSIS and missing money, ou are basically trusting that all this money is being used for the right thing. Some, even most of it may well be, but you can count that not all of it is, and in many ways, that's just the nature of the beast.

    "We have met the enemy, and he is us."

    ReplyDelete
  4. Thanks Dennis, did it ever come out in court how Nutall and CSIS or RCMP ever met each other? The whole case seems shoddy. Can't believe they were ever convicted.

    Great blog, long time reader. Glad you standup for human rights and vulnerable citizens.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. I didn't attend the whole trial. I was just there the first day. I have inside information because I took John's mother and grandmother out for lunch.

      From what I recall we were originally told CSIS tipped off the RCMP. Now we find out that CSIS was involved from day one. Their agent befriended them and started giving them groceries and money. Like I said, he didn't radicalize John, he conned him.

      Delete