Scott Horton Interviews Kurt Haskell

Scott Horton, October 15, 2011

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Kurt Haskell, Detroit area attorney and fellow passenger with “underbomber”¬†Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab on Northwest Airlines flight 253, discusses Abdulmutallab’s surprising guilty plea that means Haskell can’t be a defense witness; why the well-dressed man who helped Abdulmutallab board the plane in the Netherlands is probably an undercover intelligence agent for the US; waiting for sentencing in January after the story disappears from the news cycle; and the cumulative circumstantial evidence that shows the US government purposely gave Abdulmutallab a defective bomb to stage a terrorist attack.

MP3 here. (29:41)

Kurt Haskell is an attorney in the Detroit suburb of Taylor. He was a passenger on Northwest Airlines Flight 253 and has given numerous accounts of his experience to the media.

7 Responses to “Kurt Haskell”

  1. Comes now Scott Horton to make a royal fool of himself trying to tell an experience attorney how to negotiate through the legal niceties of his life ambition and chosen profession. Laws in federal court governing what may be admissible as evidence, Horton — why such a long drawn out dumb argument about something you know zilch, zip, zero about?

    Playing the devil’s advocate to a man clearly a beacon of light, surely Horton generated more darkness then light.

  2. john,

    i must disagree with you. lawyer or not, i saw what scott was trying to say because i thought the same thing. you cannot just say, "the passenger next to the defendant made this statement" so everything else i'm saying must be true!" when that statement had no substance in and of itself. what kurt was doing was speculating. he was playing detective and imagining how he thinks events unrolled. i believe kurt, as scott said, was right, but he was speculating based on a statement that was so obscure as that itself it was subject to any fanciful interpretation. each fact has to stand by itself and that passenger's statement meant nothing what but what he wanted it to mean. was he holding back? i think so. he deliberately chose not to speak clearly. a 1000 pieces or not, what kurt came up with was a hypothesis, or a theory, as to how he believed the events unfolded.

    remember that in our federal "justice" system only the feds get to hypothesize, the defense does not. the feds own that jury!

    and i commend scott for questioning kurt. most interviewers and MSM types would have just let it go.

  3. "I don't want to call him a terrorist because he hasn't been treated as a terrorist, and it wasn't a national threat" is significant. Who is this Howard that he knows how a 'terrorist' is to be 'treated,' for one thing? And he's told not to talk to the press? WTF? And where did that guy filming on the plane go?

    I thought Scott gave some legitimate feedback: when Kurt comes out with his conclusion first, he's likely to engage the same patronizing response in many others.

  4. The previous comment is exactly right. Scott focused on the second half of that sentence when the real substance was in the first part.

    If Howard knows of any way in which Abdulmutallab was not treated "like a terrorist" that is incredibly relevant. What knowledge does he have of the way he was treated anyway?

    Generally scott's criticisms sounded agreeable at first, with respect to the airport scanner contracts or whatever. That stuff should be left out. But this statement could mean something and shouldnt be dismissed so easily.

  5. My only point is, as a paralegal, as the main goal here is to increase attendance and let the light force all darkness to give way, a great deal more interesting would have been the interview if Scott would have let the guest share all the new light he had to offer.

  6. Scott, it's too bad when someone is incapable of taking constructive criticism for the purpose for which it's intended, which is only to help them out. You're right, of course, that Haskell should stick to what he actually knows and not attempt to support highly speculative tangents with bits of hearsay and cryptic out of context statements.

    There's a lot of fishiness to the government's actions relating to this case in light of what Haskell actually saw, to be sure. But you can't draw hard and fast conclusions from a pile of speculations. My own suspicion is that Haskell's thesis is probably correct but suspicion is not the same thing as solid proof, which is the only thing that convinces people of whether or not a claim is actual truth, which is at it should be. (Gov't officials, of course, get a free ride when it comes to demands of proof, but that doesn't mean that those of us critical of gov't actions should also be exempt from rigorous standards of proof for our own claims.)

    If Haskell, who is an ATTORNEY for goodness sake and so should be able to understand that, keeps reacting to critical questions of his claims with defensive remarks like, "You just believe all the gov't and media propaganda!", or "Go read my blog, it's all there!", he's damn sure shooting himself in the foot and guaranteeing that he won't get the wide audience his eyewitness testimony deserves.

    One thing that is painfully obvious about this American culture of ours is that critical thinking skills are seriously deteriorated throughout most of the population, regardless of their views of government.

  7. [...] attacks. That is a bold claim. What constitutes a ‘terrorist attack’? Does he count the Underwear Bomber? Maybe the Christmas Tree Bomber? Or possibly the Model Airplane Bomber? So the question is posed [...]

Leave a Reply