Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: I just heard the BPD talking about how they need to shut that scanner down since it's on the internet.. I dunno when they'll do that.
They seem to have someone surrounded in a boat - they're talking as if its the suspect.
~Tim?
Might be a sensible idea. Its kind of hard to get the drop on someone when you're broadcasting your plans.
Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote: I just heard the BPD talking about how they need to shut that scanner down since it's on the internet.. I dunno when they'll do that.
They seem to have someone surrounded in a boat - they're talking as if its the suspect.
~Tim?
Might be a sensible idea. Its kind of hard to get the drop on someone when you're broadcasting your plans.
More then likely the FBI will just fully rotate in and take complete control of the area thus reducing the need for anything of value to on the BPD radio
Nope, I mean a judge. Lets not give him ammunition for the Court by claiming that he was tortured or treated inhumanely. Let him have his day in Court with all the evidence before him so any cries of victimhood will pale by comparison to the evil that he wrought on innocent people.
If he was determined not to be a martyr why make one of him?
Nope, I mean a judge. Lets not give him ammunition for the Court by claiming that he was tortured or treated inhumanely. Let him have his day in Court with all the evidence before him so any cries of victimhood will pale by comparison to the evil that he wrought on innocent people.
If he was determined not to be a martyr why make one of him?
while Mass doesnt have the death penalty, domestic terrorism is a capital offense so if Martyrdom is what he wants then send him to death. I'm not interested in my tax dollars paying for his housing and 3 meals a day for the next 70 years
Wolf wrote: Well I'm glad they've got him ! And that he will answer for his crimes
Assuming he committed any other than fleeing the scene.
The only evidence I've heard so far is very very shaky. If the Gov decides they don't have enough proof to get a conviction, expect him to vanish into Gitmo
And shame on those already judging. Have none of you yet learned the lessons of trying people in the press rather than a court of law? Does the name Richard Jewel not ring any bells?
ironicsilence wrote: while Mass doesnt have the death penalty, domestic terrorism is a capital offense so if Martyrdom is what he wants then send him to death. I'm not interested in my tax dollars paying for his housing and 3 meals a day for the next 70 years
Martyr was probably a poor choice of words on my part - I meant that he should not become a posterboy and cause celebre for people campaigning against Gitmo and thus distracting from his alleged crimes. His aunt is already crying conspiracy, so why make it look like we have to hide him and what he has to say away.
Martyr was probably a poor choice of words on my part - I meant that he should not become a posterboy and cause celebre for people campaigning against Gitmo and thus distracting from his alleged crimes. His aunt is already crying conspiracy, so why make it look like we have to hide him and what he has to say away.
That and the Gov has been trying to avoid any more 'American Taliban' cases that might undermine their ability to simply revoke your right to a trial etc whenever they want.
Nope, I mean a judge. Lets not give him ammunition for the Court by claiming that he was tortured or treated inhumanely. Let him have his day in Court with all the evidence before him so any cries of victimhood will pale by comparison to the evil that he wrought on innocent people.
If he was determined not to be a martyr why make one of him?
while Mass doesnt have the death penalty, domestic terrorism is a capital offense so if Martyrdom is what he wants then send him to death. I'm not interested in my tax dollars paying for his housing and 3 meals a day for the next 70 years
If they charge him under federal clauses then Mass laws won't really matter.
If they charge him under federal clauses then Mass laws won't really matter.
Depends on what they can actually prove. So far the best they have is a lot of accessory and conspiracy to commit, particularly if he blames his dead brother. Unless we can put a bomb in his hand, that really all we have based on what the police have revealed.
I guess that gov feels it has a weak case then. We'll go directly to military interrogations.
A joint FBI/CIA interrogation unit that President Barack Obama established to handle terrorism cases has been activated and is on the scene, the DOJ official added. “The high value detained interrogation group is on site,” the official said.
thats odd since an official on the scene confirmed the FBI give him the miranda rights when they arrested him...guess its opposite day
Just because the officer reads you your rights doesn't mean you really have them, apparently.
The level of stink on this just reached 'High Heaven'.
It's easy, isn't it?
*sigh* Once upon a time, kids, Uncle Baron sat down and talked to a VERY bad man, who told him how easy it is to take away people's rights in the interest of things like 'National Security' and 'Public Safety'. After all, they were dangerous agents of a ruthless power that threatened the homeland's prosperity and shouldn't have rights under the law and should be placed in camps without trials.
He started off the conversation with two words. 'Heil Hitler'.
I guess that gov feels it has a weak case then. We'll go directly to military interrogations.
I don't think that's appropriate. He's an American citizen*. He should be read his rights, given a fair trial, and then when found guilty, spend the rest of his life in prison with pedophiles, rapists. and murderers. We need to stop treating these guys like they're something special: they aren't. They aren't holy warriors, they aren't martyrs of Islam - they're just spree murderers and not any more special than Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein or whomever.
*This is presuming they don't find he is working as the agent of a foreign power, which is not yet in evidence either way
I don't think that's appropriate. He's an American citizen*. He should be read his rights, given a fair trial, and then when found guilty, spend the rest of his life in prison with pedophiles, rapists. and murderers. We need to stop treating these guys like they're something special: they aren't. They aren't holy warriors, they aren't martyrs of Islam - they're just spree murderers and not any more special than Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein or whomever.
That manner of thinking is outmoded, old boy. Don't you know, there's a new way, where your 'rights' are more like... guidelines that the government can take away any time they like! Trials to dertermine guilt are over rated. WE just try you in the press and then you disappear to a new homeland in the east.
d-usa wrote: If you are going to Godwin the thread, at least get your grammar right...
It's not a Godwin if the comparison is fair. Taking people's rights away just because the government says so so that they can be tried in secret if at all is an apt comparison.
d-usa wrote: McVeigh got his trial and then the needle, that's good enough for this guy.
Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty, and I don't know a way to apply the federal death penalty here since they were all in a single state. Repeat, I *don't know*, not that there isn't.
That being said, I'd prefer him a life sentence, no parole. No martyrdom - not for you. No glorious speeches before the needle, no promises the jihad will continue... just a lifetime in supermax, 23 hours a day in a hole.
d-usa wrote: McVeigh got his trial and then the needle, that's good enough for this guy.
Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty, and I don't know a way to apply the federal death penalty here since they were all in a single state. Repeat, I *don't know*, not that there isn't.
That being said, I'd prefer him a life sentence, no parole. No martyrdom - not for you. No glorious speeches before the needle, no promises the jihad will continue... just a lifetime in supermax, 23 hours a day in a hole.
I would guess that they would have to find something "interstate" about this. Buying supplies online, communicating online, or anything along that line possibly.
Who was the cop he killed, if it was a federal agent it would probably do the trick.
d-usa wrote: McVeigh got his trial and then the needle, that's good enough for this guy.
Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty, and I don't know a way to apply the federal death penalty here since they were all in a single state. Repeat, I *don't know*, not that there isn't.
That being said, I'd prefer him a life sentence, no parole. No martyrdom - not for you. No glorious speeches before the needle, no promises the jihad will continue... just a lifetime in supermax, 23 hours a day in a hole.
The question there is can we come up with charges that stick. We have him on aiding and abetting, conspiracy to commit, and fleeing the scene. Unless they have evidence I don't know about, we don't have a smoking gun in this case for the younger of the two. We can put him on the scene but that's really it..
Cop was a college rent a cop. Puts it firmly in the state's lap. And we'd have to prove he was the trigger man there, not his brother, who had the guns during the police chase.
Well, I'm presuming they can stick him with something. Presuming they do, it looks like you can take simple murder federal even in a non-capital-punishment state. I don't really know how this works in practice.
Ouze wrote: Well, I'm presuming they can stick him with something. Presuming they do, it looks like you can take simple murder federal even in a non-capital-punishment state. I don't really know how this works in practice.
You can claim anything is federal. All you have to prove is that it effected commerce in some way.
The problem is two fold. One, Federal courts are backed up like a Carnival cruise ship toilet. Two, we put him in gen pop and he'll be murdered within the week, guilty or no.
ironicsilence wrote: he will more then likely get charged with domestic terrorism which is a federal / capital offense
True, but there will be issues with that. The first and foremost being that the current laws are not, strictly speaking, Constitutional. And while I doubt the current court would fail to hang him high, even they would have ot admit that detaining him without his civil rights pretty much trashes the government's case. Remember that if he goes to a US court, failure to give him Miranda taints the government's case.
BaronIveagh wrote: Remember that if he goes to a US court, failure to give him Miranda taints the government's case.
Not necessarily. It just means that any statements he gives while in custody until this occurs are probably not admissible. That doesn't mean they may not have enough evidence that it simply doesn't matter. If he confesses while in custody pre-mirandizing, they won't be able to use it (probably). If they have dozens of witnesses, tons of DNA, etc etc, though, it won't matter much.
Not necessarily. It just means that any statements he gives while in custody until this occurs are probably not admissible. That doesn't mean they may not have enough evidence that it simply doesn't matter. If he confesses while in custody pre-mirandizing, they won't be able to use it (probably).
No, because they have also denied him the right to representation, which is a little more far reaching. Remember that Miranda is more than just 'right to remain'. If they get a confession out of him (or beat one out of him) it's not admissible. The problem is that they're also not allowing him a lawyer to be present while the new CIA/FBI co-op works him over, which will probably determine what legal venue he gets remanded to. Which is a much bigger deal.
Ouze wrote: Well, I'm presuming they can stick him with something. Presuming they do, it looks like you can take simple murder federal even in a non-capital-punishment state. I don't really know how this works in practice.
You can claim anything is federal. All you have to prove is that it effected commerce in some way.
The problem is two fold. One, Federal courts are backed up like a Carnival cruise ship toilet. Two, we put him in gen pop and he'll be murdered within the week, guilty or no.
ironicsilence wrote: he will more then likely get charged with domestic terrorism which is a federal / capital offense
True, but there will be issues with that. The first and foremost being that the current laws are not, strictly speaking, Constitutional. And while I doubt the current court would fail to hang him high, even they would have ot admit that detaining him without his civil rights pretty much trashes the government's case. Remember that if he goes to a US court, failure to give him Miranda taints the government's case.
There are exceptions to the Miranda requirement if there is a legitimate and immediate public safety concern, which has been allowed by the courts - there may still be bombs out there, there may be other accomplices, so they can ask him questions about that. All it does to the case is mean that anything he says BEFORE he is read his Miranda rights cannot be used as evidence - this actually indicates that they probably have enough evidence for the case outside of what he will say/confess at the moment.
Also the guy was apparently unconscious when he was taken, so they might not have had much of a window to read him his rights yet, and that would be taken up with asking about public safety stuff. You can't read rights to an unconscious guy, and expect it to mean anything.
DOJ:
"The suspect is en route to the hospital for immediate treatment," the official tells TPM's Sahil Kapur. "But we plan to invoke the public safety exception to Miranda in order to question the suspect extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to gain critical intelligence."
Ouze wrote: Not advising him of his right to obtain representation is not the same as depriving him of representation.
So far, the sound of it is that he is being denied representation entirely. However, the Government has not apparently made a decision one way or the other if he should be tried in civil or military courts. As he's badly wounded and in the hospital, this might end up being moot anyway. I hope they're watching him close. and the Doctors and nurses as well.
d-usa wrote: If you are going to Godwin the thread, at least get your grammar right...
It's not a Godwin if the comparison is fair. Taking people's rights away just because the government says so so that they can be tried in secret if at all is an apt comparison.
Actually that isn't how Godwin works at all. It is only not Godwin'd if the subject is actually about Nazism and WWII. The point of Godwiin is that anyone can (and will) find comparisons between something they don't like and Nazism, so it is a useless and overused comparison. Such as here.
The issue of military or civilian courts will depend on if he's working with an outside group or if this is entirely domestic. Either way, I doubt he will wind up in military custody.
Well, I hope he lives, because I'd like to know why the f he did it, mostly why "here" and not "Moscow", or "Saint Petersburg".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Breotan wrote: The issue of military or civilian courts will depend on if he's working with an outside group or if this is entirely domestic. Either way, I doubt he will wind up in military custody.
Yeah, I said "presuming" at the middle of this little thought exercise for the former. So far as the latter, why do you say? If a foreign power that seems a legitimate avenue to me.
Actually that isn't how Godwin works at all. It is only not Godwin'd if the subject is actually about Nazism and WWII. The point of Godwiin is that anyone can (and will) find comparisons between something they don't like and Nazism, so it is a useless and overused comparison. Such as here.
Godwin himself added an exception for relevant comparisons when he wanted to talk about Abu Greib prison. Relevant comparisons do not invoke Godwin.
However, the 'Larson Corollary states:
“As an online discussion of a topic which can be legitimately compared to Nazis or Nazi related events grows, the probability of observing a laboured and unwarranted retreat or appeal to Godwin's Law approaches one.”
Edit:Here's a thought that brought a nostalgic smile to my face: 'What if he or his brother turned out to be/have been a Russian agent?'
Actually that isn't how Godwin works at all. It is only not Godwin'd if the subject is actually about Nazism and WWII. The point of Godwiin is that anyone can (and will) find comparisons between something they don't like and Nazism, so it is a useless and overused comparison. Such as here.
Godwin himself added an exception for relevant comparisons when he wanted to talk about Abu Greib prison. Relevant comparisons do not invoke Godwin.
Even so, everyone thinks their crappy comparison is relevant, just as I imagine you think your crappy comparison is relevant, but that doesn't make it so. Comparing the US to Nazi German is a pretty short sighed and ill-considered conclusion. Gitmo and the Patriot Act are problematic, but problematic does not a Nazi regime make.
Even so, everyone thinks their crappy comparison is relevant, just as I imagine you think your crappy comparison is relevant, but that doesn't make it so. Comparing the US to Nazi German is a pretty short sighed and ill-considered conclusion. Gitmo and the Patriot Act are problematic, but problematic does not a Nazi regime make.
Because Germany didn't wake up one morning and embrace a totalitarian regime and start feeding innocent people into a gas chamber.
Look at what happened to Germany. When you see the same pattern of things coached in the same language happening here, it should set warning bells to ringing.
Don't worry about it, we just need a little more power to protect you is all. Just a little more!
*shakes head*
When they start talking about how you don't need rights, any right, or that your rights really aren't rights at all, or don't apply to the common person, or certain people or groups of people, then those men need to be removed from power as quickly as possible, before they can get the ball rolling. To say 'You can't compare (Country X) to Nazi Germany' is to bury your head in the sand and hope nothing bad happens. I compare every country to Nazi Germany and try to determine how that particular evolution of politics can be headed off.
The founding fathers knew this. Why do you think that the military swears their oath to the Constitution and not the President of the United States?
They're Chechen...to young to get involve in any fighting with the russians. Mother borought them to the States Refugee status from Kazakastan. Brother attacks us as we were the colosestr for them to vent.Decade ago....so olde brother would have been 16..pretty sure he had military training....younger brother we're looking at 6. No way. Older brother influence younger brother.. See how theypicked up the pressure cooker for the det, Wondering where the hell they recieved military grade explosives to usel. Its scarey that the ENEMY has an establish logistic line in the the USA.
I guess that gov feels it has a weak case then. We'll go directly to military interrogations.
I don't think that's appropriate. He's an American citizen*. He should be read his rights, given a fair trial, and then when found guilty, spend the rest of his life in prison with pedophiles, rapists. and murderers. We need to stop treating these guys like they're something special: they aren't. They aren't holy warriors, they aren't martyrs of Islam - they're just spree murderers and not any more special than Jeffrey Dahmer or Ed Gein or whomever.
*This is presuming they don't find he is working as the agent of a foreign power, which is not yet in evidence either way
Even so, everyone thinks their crappy comparison is relevant, just as I imagine you think your crappy comparison is relevant, but that doesn't make it so. Comparing the US to Nazi German is a pretty short sighed and ill-considered conclusion. Gitmo and the Patriot Act are problematic, but problematic does not a Nazi regime make.
Paranoid Slippery Slope Snip
The problem with that argument is that it essentially says that all legislation leads to Nazism, and is one of the reasons for Godwin. You might as well say that the ratification of The Constitution was the first step toward Nazism, as per any Slipper Slope argument.
Ouze wrote: Well, the news is pretty damn unreliable right now, but according to CNN the surviving suspect was a naturalized citizen as of 2012.
Sweet. And their uncle, according to some reports, says they're not Chechen, so we can please everybody and go back to the, "crazy white right-wing American militia," theory.
Ouze wrote: Well, the news is pretty damn unreliable right now, but according to CNN the surviving suspect was a naturalized citizen as of 2012.
Sweet. And their uncle, according to some reports, says they're not Chechen, so we can please everybody and go back to the, "crazy white right-wing American militia," theory.
But Uncle Myxlplyx sounds just like Pasha D. Lychnikoff from the latest Die Hard movie.
IMO the reason the uncle gave on TV was correct -- they were losers who never found a stable place in society and ended up hating people who did. (Paraphrased a bit.)
However until they can explain their motivation we are all guessing at it. It's much nicer to think that people commit this kind of crime because they are agents of a foreign power, or a deep conspiracy.
Kilkrazy wrote: IMO the reason the uncle gave on TV was correct -- they were losers who never found a stable place in society and ended up hating people who did. (Paraphrased a bit.)
However until they can explain their motivation we are all guessing at it. It's much nicer to think that people commit this kind of crime because they are agents of a foreign power, or a deep conspiracy.
Combined with the small bio from the boxing thing on one of them, and that really looks like the motivation. They felt like outsiders, resented the people they couldn't relate to, throw in some pseudo-Islamic ideology they seem to have picked up somewhere and you've got morality-based contempt for them too. It all adds up to a pretty dangerous mix. I'd hazard to guess they were also chronically stressed out or miserable, as that tends to create nihilistic impulses and spiked aggression. The first gives them a target and internal validation, the second gives them the desire for violence.
The life expectancy for this guy in the GP of a Federal slammer is probably measured in minutes. Especially if he ends up in Leavenworth.
So while the question of civilian or military courts is up in the air, what does dakka think? Personally unless it gets revealed these idiots were North Korean secret agents by way of Eastern Europe I think we should throw'em to the civilian courts, I also don't think it's a question if this is going to end up being in Federal courts or not. It's federal. It's a terrorism case, there's no WAY Boston or even Massachusetts gets to keep this one, DOJ's DAs can smell blood in the water and are already circling.
It's great that he's been taken alive, now keep him alive to face trial and pick apart whatever idealology he's following. I think if he'd died, it would become mostly guessing, and his motives would become a whatever bogeyman someone wanted when making a political point. He'd be a Muslim one day, a right wing nutter the next.
My feeling, looking at some things already described is that there was little more than hate behind this. It's going to be dissatisfactory and scary to those already hoping/claiming he must be a Muslim, because maybe they were just hateful nutters randomly lashing out at the world, not people following a pattern or having any allegiance.
I think, unless they determine - and I'm snickering here - that they are Soviet sleeper agents - then it's pretty clearly a civilian matter, and probably a federal one. Of course, I believe in following the constitution, even when it's inconvenient.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Howard A Treesong wrote: I It's going to be dissatisfactory and scary to those already hoping/claiming he must be a Muslim, because maybe they were just hateful nutters randomly lashing out at the world, not people following a pattern or having any allegiance.
I concur that the "free-range school shooter" theory is also quite plausible.
Despite the fact that Martial Law was called for Boston during the five day search, with police going door to door and searching houses. Seriously, what the heck?
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they caught the guy, but Martial Law, for a Suspected bomber just doesn't sit well with me. Tell me I'm crazy please.
Errr... they didn't lock the city down till yesterday, and that was when these fethheads had a running gun battle with police and started lobbing IEDs/assorted explosives like Santa Clause lobbing out presents on Christmas Eve. Martial law is a scary, scary thing and not to be taken lightly, it's my personal opinion that locking down Boston to crush this guy's mobility, the cordoning off the area they know he's in, then going house to house to A. check for explosives, B. ensure the safety of the public at large and C. tighten the noose on this S.O.B was the exact right thing to do. Not like the Boston PD was kicking in doors either.
Edit: as to my own question, this is a kinda gray area of law still, is a terrorist a combatant or a criminal? Do they receive a military court martial? Or do we hang them via civilian courts?
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Doesn't matter if MA doesn't have the death penalty. Federal case, and they still erect the gallows.
So what will he found guilty of?
A. High Treason
B. Terrorism
C. Robbery
D. Murder of Government Servants
E. Else.......
Even if Obama grant his mercy, to spare him from the death sentences. Bostonians and MA folks will lynch him at the moment he left the prison.
At the moment the police declared the suspects were caught, everyone in boston chants USA! USA! USA! for hours! at that moment, the world has turned against him.... well except some megalomaniacs living elsewhere who still holds anti-colonialism mindset (and wants to whack the entire Union) would chants his name, and plot yet another cabal.
Orlanth wrote: Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty.
I don't consider that a mercy in this case. Assuming there is a conviction this kid will spend 70 years in iso. What a pity.
Yes, what he did was a shocking crime, but I would guess (and it's only a guess) from what I've read about them, that his older brother led him down this path. It seemed like he had the brighter future of the two and now it's gone. If guilty, he has to pay the price though, no arguments there.
A cop-killing terrorist has been caught at last. The only mercy he should receive is death - either by the state (preferably), but if he fails, I will not judge any citizen doing the job.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Doesn't matter if MA doesn't have the death penalty. Federal case, and they still erect the gallows.
So what will he found guilty of?
A. High Treason
B. Terrorism
C. Robbery
D. Murder of Government Servants
E. Else.......
Even if Obama grant his mercy, to spare him from the death sentences. Bostonians and MA folks will lynch him at the moment he left the prison.
At the moment the police declared the suspects were caught, everyone in boston chants USA! USA! USA! for hours! at that moment, the world has turned against him.... well except some megalomaniacs living elsewhere who still holds anti-colonialism mindset (and wants to whack the entire Union) would chants his name, and plot yet another cabal.
It's a long list actually, conspiracy, terrorism, multiple counts of 1st degree murder, attempted murder, assaulting police officers, conspiracy to violate U.S. weapons laws, possibly possession of explosives, treason's certainly a possibility if they had friends on the outside, then there's the small stuff with two counts of armed robbery, grand theft auto, I mean the sheer amount of carnage and havoc these guys caused... it's gonna take a dedicated TEAM of prosecutors a significant amount of time to come out with all the charges.
As to the lynching, well... he doesn't have to worry about that. No matter how this trial goes, ol'boy is never going to walk out of a U.S. prison alive. He will either be executed, or he will die in prison. Either by age or courtesy of the other inmates. When you get life in prison in the United States. They mean it.
Orlanth wrote: Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty.
I don't consider that a mercy in this case. Assuming there is a conviction this kid will spend 70 years in iso. What a pity.
Yes, what he did was a shocking crime, but I would guess (and it's only a guess) from what I've read about them, that his older brother led him down this path. It seemed like he had the brighter future of the two and now it's gone. If guilty, he has to pay the price though, no arguments there.
Seems a reasonable conclusion based on the information we have at this time Flashhear... err Flashman.
Will this fellow have access to a solicitor? And be guaranteed a fair trial?
Having read through this thread, I'm not convinced he's going to receive either of those things. And that worries me, to be frank. There's always another bomb nutter round the corner every few years, but the mark of a free democracy to me is that the Government don't just have the power to make your rights go away.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: Doesn't matter if MA doesn't have the death penalty. Federal case, and they still erect the gallows.
So what will he found guilty of?
A. High Treason
B. Terrorism
C. Robbery
D. Murder of Government Servants
E. Else.......
Even if Obama grant his mercy, to spare him from the death sentences. Bostonians and MA folks will lynch him at the moment he left the prison.
At the moment the police declared the suspects were caught, everyone in boston chants USA! USA! USA! for hours! at that moment, the world has turned against him.... well except some megalomaniacs living elsewhere who still holds anti-colonialism mindset (and wants to whack the entire Union) would chants his name, and plot yet another cabal.
It's a long list actually, conspiracy, terrorism, multiple counts of 1st degree murder, attempted murder, assaulting police officers, conspiracy to violate U.S. weapons laws, possibly possession of explosives, treason's certainly a possibility if they had friends on the outside, then there's the small stuff with two counts of armed robbery, grand theft auto, I mean the sheer amount of carnage and havoc these guys caused... it's gonna take a dedicated TEAM of prosecutors a significant amount of time to come out with all the charges.
As to the lynching, well... he doesn't have to worry about that. No matter how this trial goes, ol'boy is never going to walk out of a U.S. prison alive. He will either be executed, or he will die in prison. Either by age or courtesy of the other inmates. When you get life in prison in the United States. They mean it.
Orlanth wrote: Massachusetts doesn't have the death penalty.
I don't consider that a mercy in this case. Assuming there is a conviction this kid will spend 70 years in iso. What a pity.
Yes, what he did was a shocking crime, but I would guess (and it's only a guess) from what I've read about them, that his older brother led him down this path. It seemed like he had the brighter future of the two and now it's gone. If guilty, he has to pay the price though, no arguments there.
Seems a reasonable conclusion based on the information we have at this time Flashhear... err Flashman.
So the President of the USA has no power to free or grant leniency to any convicts. right?
Leaders of several smaller nations were granted power to provide leniency and at on the birthday of each ruling ones, they might issued leniency, several times, many convicts bound to the death rows ended up only some decades in prison and later freed. Those who got life later got the freedom this way.
Especially in Thailand, there were numbers of dangerous bandits (non-political ones, yes usually gangsters too!) who were originally sentenced to death, but later got their freedom in less than 8 years. I know this ain't gonna happen in the US (unless the 'video game' incidents seen in either Assassin Creed or Mafia II happened in life), What do you think of leniency. Will it eventually ruins soceity as unrepentants roam free and honest folks (especially those who responsible of the incacerations) will be preyed upon?
Interesting fact: police urged everyone to stay inside so that they could find him (I'm not going to get caught up in the mass hysteria and call it martial law).
But the only reason he was found was because they lifted the "stay inside" request and somebody went outside, saw blood, and called 911.
Ketara wrote: Will this fellow have access to a solicitor? And be guaranteed a fair trial?
Having read through this thread, I'm not convinced he's going to receive either of those things. And that worries me, to be frank. There's always another bomb nutter round the corner every few years, but the mark of a free democracy to me is that the Government don't just have the power to make your rights go away.
From my limited understanding of the US 'safety of civilians' act thingy, the police/feds will have roughly 48 hours or so to question this guy without mirandising him and having a defense lawyer present. After that, they have to follow civilan law and remind him of his rights to keep his trap shut and have council present.
The US doesn't want this turning into some three-ring enemy combatent military style circus. It only feeds the nutters and helps them rationalise their motives as being 'freedom fighters' taking on a morally corrupt and evil state that's imposing foriegn values onto Muslims/'insert any random group here'.
A fair civilan trial keeps the US looking both respectable and still firmly dedicated to its ideals of democracy and freedom of choice/rights for all.
Ketara wrote: Will this fellow have access to a solicitor? And be guaranteed a fair trial?
Having read through this thread, I'm not convinced he's going to receive either of those things. And that worries me, to be frank. There's always another bomb nutter round the corner every few years, but the mark of a free democracy to me is that the Government don't just have the power to make your rights go away.
He was taken alive, he will. This is the US. Not China.
While I don't agree with the public safety exception, my guess is that it was used because of the thread of secondary devices still out there and to try to find coconspirators on the run.
I don't think he will end up with a black bag on his head as he disappears in our military terrorist prisons.
d-usa wrote: Interesting fact: police urged everyone to stay inside so that they could find him (I'm not going to get caught up in the mass hysteria and call it martial law).
It also doesn't make sense to call it martial law since the cops aren't the military; Martial Law doesn't mean the State and local authorities ask people to stay indoors. As far as I can tell this is just, even at worst, a case of, you know, law. I haven't seen pics of hummers rolling through the streets or IFVs parked on the sidewalks.
For some reason this incident makes me think of the turn of the century Anarchist bombings.
d-usa wrote: Interesting fact: police urged everyone to stay inside so that they could find him (I'm not going to get caught up in the mass hysteria and call it martial law).
It also doesn't make sense to call it martial law since the cops aren't the military; Martial Law doesn't mean the State and local authorities ask people to stay indoors. As far as I can tell this is just, even at worst, a case of, you know, law. I haven't seen pics of hummers rolling through the streets or IFVs parked on the sidewalks.
Well, the National Guard was involved. There were Blackhawks, and Hummers out there. But most likely it was under the oversite of the Governer, not the President. Especially since it would be illegal for the President to order them to do so under Posse Comitatus.
d-usa wrote: Interesting fact: police urged everyone to stay inside so that they could find him (I'm not going to get caught up in the mass hysteria and call it martial law).
It also doesn't make sense to call it martial law since the cops aren't the military; Martial Law doesn't mean the State and local authorities ask people to stay indoors. As far as I can tell this is just, even at worst, a case of, you know, law. I haven't seen pics of hummers rolling through the streets or IFVs parked on the sidewalks.
I might agree to call it martial law if the police and national guard are patrolling the streets, enforcing a lockdown order, and shoot/arrest anybody who dares to leave their house.
"A yellow coded curfew is now in effect. This is for your protection..."
Ketara wrote: Will this fellow have access to a solicitor? And be guaranteed a fair trial?
Having read through this thread, I'm not convinced he's going to receive either of those things. And that worries me, to be frank. There's always another bomb nutter round the corner every few years, but the mark of a free democracy to me is that the Government don't just have the power to make your rights go away.
From my limited understanding of the US 'safety of civilians' act thingy, the police/feds will have roughly 48 hours or so to question this guy without mirandising him and having a defense lawyer present. After that, they have to follow civilan law and remind him of his rights to keep his trap shut and have council present.
The US doesn't want this turning into some three-ring enemy combatent military style circus. It only feeds the nutters and helps them rationalise their motives as being 'freedom fighters' taking on a morally corrupt and evil state that's imposing foriegn values onto Muslims/'insert any random group here'.
A fair civilan trial keeps the US looking both respectable and still firmly dedicated to its ideals of democracy and freedom of choice/rights for all.
The feds will also be very limited in what they can ask during the questioning before he is lawyered up.
And lets be honest. Do you think there are a lot of 19 year olds in the US that DON'T understand basic Miranda rights from TV/movies? Just because some cop does not pull out a card and read it to him does not mean he doesn't have a decent grasp of his rights...
d-usa wrote: Interesting fact: police urged everyone to stay inside so that they could find him (I'm not going to get caught up in the mass hysteria and call it martial law).
It also doesn't make sense to call it martial law since the cops aren't the military; Martial Law doesn't mean the State and local authorities ask people to stay indoors. As far as I can tell this is just, even at worst, a case of, you know, law. I haven't seen pics of hummers rolling through the streets or IFVs parked on the sidewalks.
Well, the National Guard was involved. There were Blackhawks, and Hummers out there. But most likely it was under the oversite of the Governer, not the President. Especially since it would be illegal for the President to order them to do so under Posse Comitatus.
On the positive side, it was really something to see the level of effective and efficient co-operation between Boston Police, Watertown PD, (and every other nearby township's PD for that matter!), State Police, Military Police, FBI, ATF...
I mean, when you consider the logistics of organising a manhunt for known dangerous offender in an urban setting utilising over 9000 officers!
d-usa wrote: Interesting fact: police urged everyone to stay inside so that they could find him (I'm not going to get caught up in the mass hysteria and call it martial law).
It also doesn't make sense to call it martial law since the cops aren't the military; Martial Law doesn't mean the State and local authorities ask people to stay indoors. As far as I can tell this is just, even at worst, a case of, you know, law. I haven't seen pics of hummers rolling through the streets or IFVs parked on the sidewalks.
Well, the National Guard was involved. There were Blackhawks, and Hummers out there. But most likely it was under the oversite of the Governer, not the President. Especially since it would be illegal for the President to order them to do so under Posse Comitatus.
Not entirely accurate. Federal troops (even federalized NG) can provide all kinds of logistic support to include uparmored hummers for transportation in an IED possible environment, EOD teams and such to LE, they just cannot act in an LE capacity (make arrests).
d-usa wrote: Interesting fact: police urged everyone to stay inside so that they could find him (I'm not going to get caught up in the mass hysteria and call it martial law).
It also doesn't make sense to call it martial law since the cops aren't the military; Martial Law doesn't mean the State and local authorities ask people to stay indoors. As far as I can tell this is just, even at worst, a case of, you know, law. I haven't seen pics of hummers rolling through the streets or IFVs parked on the sidewalks.
Well, the National Guard was involved. There were Blackhawks, and Hummers out there. But most likely it was under the oversite of the Governer, not the President. Especially since it would be illegal for the President to order them to do so under Posse Comitatus.
Not entirely accurate. Federal troops (even federalized NG) can provide all kinds of logistic support to include uparmored hummers for transportation in an IED possible environment, EOD teams and such to LE, they just cannot act in an LE capacity (make arrests).
The Blackhawks were being used to search for the suspect. Troops were on the ground as well searching from stories I've read. They had to be there under the Governer's orders.
Martial Law isn't using NG assets or Military advisers; helping out in a support role isn't the same thing as taking over. I would imagine they made up a very small percentage of the overall force involved in the manhunt.
Ahtman wrote: Martial Law isn't using NG assets or Military advisers; helping out in a support role isn't the same thing as taking over. I would imagine they made up a very small percentage of the overall force involved in the manhunt.
Not arguing they are. Was just pointing out they were there. If there was Martial Law, then they wouldn't have let people "go about their business" while the man was still loose, like they did at 1730.
The problem with that argument is that it essentially says that all legislation leads to Nazism, and is one of the reasons for Godwin. You might as well say that the ratification of The Constitution was the first step toward Nazism, as per any Slipper Slope argument.
Nice strawman, there. Too bad it doesn't even begin to resemble what I'm talking about.
I'm saying that when people start talking about taking your rights away, regardless of their reasoning perhaps you should show them the door. Particularly if they start using the 'You are under attack and we need to take away your rights to protect you' since that was the angle the Nazis played, and it's the same angle the US government is playing now when they claim that 'enemy combatants' have no rights, regardless of them being US citizens or not.
You can claim it's a slippery slope argument, but taking away the public's rights is a key step on the road to any totalitarian regime. The Nazis just took the time to record what they did, which makes the comparison easier.
Godwin exists to reduce hyperbola re comparing unrelated subjects to Nazism. Check Wikipedia. Or ask Godwin yourself if you care to take the time.
The blackhawks were fed birds, but not DoD from my understanding. Even if DoD, not a big deal, they were not gonna arrest anyone from a chopper. NG troops can search and man security posts all day either under the Gov's orders or after having been federalized (and I don't think these guys were), BUT they would need a LEO along to arrest...
CptJake wrote: The blackhawks were fed birds, but not DoD from my understanding. Even if DoD, not a big deal, they were not gonna arrest anyone from a chopper. NG troops can search and man security posts all day either under the Gov's orders or after having been federalized (and I don't think these guys were), BUT they would need a LEO along to arrest...
In an Emergency, the President can order Federal troops to assist local law enforcement/disaster relief, etc, with the permission of the Governor. Which I'm willing to bet was given. They cannot make arrests, but they can provide other support, (including fire support if the situation warrants).
Sigvatr wrote: The only mercy he should receive is death - either by the state (preferably), but if he fails, I will not judge any citizen doing the job.
Listen, I don't know how they do it in Germany, but if someone popped a cap in him here, they would expect to also be charged with murder. These guys killed a couple of people, which is bad, but it's not a threat to our way of life, to our democracy. It's all this extra-curricular nonsense - this extralegal, enemy-combatant, lets-take-him-to-gitmo type stuff that both you and Lindsay Graham espouse - that's the actual threat to our freedom.
A free, fair, and open trial isn't the "preferred way", it's the only way.
*Again, this is all pre-supposing he's not an agent of a foreign power, something not yet established.
CptJake wrote: The blackhawks were fed birds, but not DoD from my understanding. Even if DoD, not a big deal, they were not gonna arrest anyone from a chopper. NG troops can search and man security posts all day either under the Gov's orders or after having been federalized (and I don't think these guys were), BUT they would need a LEO along to arrest...
In an Emergency, the President can order Federal troops to assist local law enforcement/disaster relief, etc, with the permission of the Governor. Which I'm willing to bet was given. They cannot make arrests, but they can provide other support, (including fire support if the situation warrants).
I've got a few friends in the National Guard out in the boston area that were deployed, from what I was told the Gov mobilized a total of 500 national guard, most were used to secure public areas and transit hubs. Additionally several elements of EOD were also deployed
Sigvatr wrote: The only mercy he should receive is death - either by the state (preferably), but if he fails, I will not judge any citizen doing the job.
Listen, I don't know how they do it in Germany, but if someone popped a cap in him here, they would expect to also be charged with murder. These guys killed a couple of people, which is bad, but it's not a threat to our way of life, to our democracy. It's all this extra-curricular nonsense - this extralegal, enemy-combatant, lets-take-him-to-gitmo type stuff that both you and Lindsay Graham espouse - that's the actual threat to our freedom.
A free, fair, and open trial isn't the "preferred way", it's the only way.
I am not trolling. He denied the law and thus refused to pe a part of a democracy; he therefore is not worthy of any rights anymore. It you'd ask me what *should* happen with him, I'd talk about torture etc. first, but as I said, death will be a fair enough verdict. Sure, shooting him would be murder as well. But I, personally, would not condone such a act. Killing a serious criminal is not a crime, but a good decision.
He's in a hospital now, with grave wounds...so.."He passed away to his fatal wounds half a hour ago.". There.
Despite the fact that Martial Law was called for Boston during the five day search, with police going door to door and searching houses. Seriously, what the heck?
Don't get me wrong, I'm glad they caught the guy, but Martial Law, for a Suspected bomber just doesn't sit well with me. Tell me I'm crazy please.
Errr... they didn't lock the city down till yesterday, and that was when these fethheads had a running gun battle with police and started lobbing IEDs/assorted explosives like Santa Clause lobbing out presents on Christmas Eve. Martial law is a scary, scary thing and not to be taken lightly, it's my personal opinion that locking down Boston to crush this guy's mobility, the cordoning off the area they know he's in, then going house to house to A. check for explosives, B. ensure the safety of the public at large and C. tighten the noose on this S.O.B was the exact right thing to do. Not like the Boston PD was kicking in doors either.
Edit: as to my own question, this is a kinda gray area of law still, is a terrorist a combatant or a criminal? Do they receive a military court martial? Or do we hang them via civilian courts?
He is a criminal.
The international law on the matter is pretty clear. You are a legitimate combattant if you are a member of a country's armed forces at war, or if you as a citizen have taken up arms to resist invasion (even though not a member of the armed forces.) In either case you have to follow the normal rules of war, i.e. Geneva Convention, etc.
You are not a combattant if you engage in personal attacks for whatever purpose.
I am not trolling. He denied the law and thus refused to pe a part of a democracy; he therefore is not worthy of any rights anymore. It you'd ask me what *should* happen with him, I'd talk about torture etc. first, but as I said, death will be a fair enough verdict. Sure, shooting him would be murder as well. But I, personally, would not condone such a act. Killing a serious criminal is not a crime, but a good decision.
He's in a hospital now, with grave wounds...so.."He passed away to his fatal wounds half a hour ago.". There.
So your idea of democracy is that people who deny the law, and thus 'refused democracy', are 'not worthy of any rights' and in this case your preferred solution is torture followed by death. You talk about 'the law' and 'democracy' but then decide it would be better to kill him in his hospital bed than actually make him stand trial and prove his guilt before doling out capital punishment.
It's really sad how proud of yourself you seem to be.
Edit: as to my own question, this is a kinda gray area of law still, is a terrorist a combatant or a criminal? Do they receive a military court martial? Or do we hang them via civilian courts?
As he's not really associated with anyone, criminal.
The issue of Chechnya in general however is a little more cloudy, as they ARE civilians taking up arms to oppose invaders, technically. Remember that Chechnya is a de facto occupied state and has been since Ivan the Terrible. (which technically means the Russians have been committing some war crimes themselves, but that's nothing new.)
The people caught in the middle of this are the Russian civilians that Stalin moved in to the area to occupy it when the Chechens were all briefly forcibly relocated during WW2 to keep them from allying with the Germans.
this guy will never get parole, at minimum he is looking at multiple life sentences with zero chance of parole
Actually probably not with what we know they can prove. And, again, while the press is trying to cram a round peg in a square hole trying to shape the narrative they want to tell, the story so far does not add up.
BaronIveagh wrote: Actually probably not with what we know they can prove. And, again, while the press is trying to cram a round peg in a square hole trying to shape the narrative they want to tell, the story so far does not add up.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
The Baron just seems horribly out of it. The shootout and use of bombs during the shootout alone should be enough to get him life(he did use them in a residential area)
Mr Hyena wrote: Its kinda sad how this guy will probably be out on parole in not that long a time instead of an actual life sentence or execution....
Nah, I don't think so.
this guy will never get parole, at minimum he is looking at multiple life sentences with zero chance of parole
Indeed, and unlike Norway we don't have maximum sentences.
I actually kinda hope he gets Life and gets shipped off to some Federal prison full of gangs. Thats basically a death sentence without the humane method of execution.
BaronIveagh wrote: Actually probably not with what we know they can prove. And, again, while the press is trying to cram a round peg in a square hole trying to shape the narrative they want to tell, the story so far does not add up.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
baron where you the guy at all the press conferences asking if this was all a flase flag operation? Dude took part in the murder of a cop....was in a high speed chase with police exchanging gun fire and throwing home made nades...all through a residential area. Even if the stars align perfectly and they cant prove he took part in the bombing that stuff alone has him looking at a lot of prison time.
Edit: as to my own question, this is a kinda gray area of law still, is a terrorist a combatant or a criminal? Do they receive a military court martial? Or do we hang them via civilian courts?
As he's not really associated with anyone, criminal.
The issue of Chechnya in general however is a little more cloudy, as they ARE civilians taking up arms to oppose invaders, technically. Remember that Chechnya is a de facto occupied state and has been since Ivan the Terrible. (which technically means the Russians have been committing some war crimes themselves, but that's nothing new.)
...
...
.
If they had stayed in Chechnya and confined their attacks to the Russian forces, they would have been legal combatants (not that that would make any difference to the Russians) but by bombing civilians in the US they have made themselves simply criminals.
Ketara wrote: Will this fellow have access to a solicitor? And be guaranteed a fair trial?
.
I'm sure he'll get a fair trial, but why would we provide him access to a prostitute? Wouldn't a lawyer be better for this kinda thing?
Speaking of prostitutes, I'm sure he'll get some sort of protective custody which will prevent him from becoming the Beauty Queen of Cell Block D. Throwing him into General Population for the rest of his life would be pretty much the worst thing you could do, to a baby faced little boy.
BaronIveagh wrote: Actually probably not with what we know they can prove. And, again, while the press is trying to cram a round peg in a square hole trying to shape the narrative they want to tell, the story so far does not add up.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
baron where you the guy at all the press conferences asking if this was all a flase flag operation? Dude took part in the murder of a cop....was in a high speed chase with police exchanging gun fire and throwing home made nades...all through a residential area. Even if the stars align perfectly and they cant prove he took part in the bombing that stuff alone has him looking at a lot of prison time.
Because the US is still, despite what some asshats on the internet would advise, a nation of laws where before we start flaying people alive, they have have their day in court. Until such time as he is found guilty by a Jury of his peers, he's innocent. If you bother to even do the barest of research on the subject, you might find that, on occasion, the media is full of bs and the government tells what ever lies it deems convenient. Anyone remember Kill Ratios? That My Lai (irony!) Massacre as a enemy rumor and the people talking about it were un American traitors? What the Definition of 'is' is?
Until someone shows you actual proof, remain skeptical. Remember that we have all been down this road before with the press and a bombing. Granted, if what has been reported is, in fact, true, it makes them look guilty, I agree. So far though I have not heard any evidence actually linking them with the shot officer.
Kilkrazy wrote:
If they had stayed in Chechnya and confined their attacks to the Russian forces, they would have been legal combatants (not that that would make any difference to the Russians) but by bombing civilians in the US they have made themselves simply criminals.
Well, one, these guys were not, as far as we know, actually associated with Chechen rebel organizations. Thus, criminals no matter how you cut it. Two, IIRC, even if they were, there is no 'limit' to how far afield their operations are, only that once a coherent military is formed they either fold into it or disband. The (non) war crime here is the engagement of Civilians, not the fact it took place on American soil. It would have been just as much a war crime here as anywhere else. It does violate American neutrality in the conflict, though, and would lead to any Russian or Chechen fighters caught in the US to be interned for the duration.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[31]
any explosive or incendiary device, as defined in Title 18 USC, Section 921: bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, or other device with a charge of more than four ounces
Add in the murder charges, attempted murder charges, wounding with intent, lesser wounding charges, property damage etc. and parole doesn't really seem so likely now does it?
This was such a relief to hear (heard it on the radio on the way home last night). I hope he cooperates and tells authorities what brought him to do this. I also hope, given that he's 19, that he gets life without parole instead of the death penalty... I find it hard to believe that his older brother (26) didn't radicalize him.
Overall, just so glad they were able to catch him without having to kill him, and without him killing anyone else. Good work, Boston police, FBI, and all involved!
BaronIveagh wrote: Actually probably not with what we know they can prove. And, again, while the press is trying to cram a round peg in a square hole trying to shape the narrative they want to tell, the story so far does not add up.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
I don't think you're the only one wondering. One minute he's telling us all that
BaronIveagh wrote: Because the US is still, despite what some asshats on the internet would advise, a nation of laws where before we start flaying people alive, they have have their day in court.
And up until that point it was tinfoil on head posts like;
Yeah, innocent people don't simply walk around with homemade bombs, rob SUVs, and shoot at cops.
Depends on where you live. Personally, even if innocent of the bombing, if I had my face plastered over the national news as a bomber and mass murderer, I'd have done all those things trying to escape too.
BaronIveagh wrote: Assuming he committed any other than fleeing the scene.
The only evidence I've heard so far is very very shaky. If the Gov decides they don't have enough proof to get a conviction, expect him to vanish into Gitmo
BaronIveagh wrote: That and the Gov has been trying to avoid any more 'American Taliban' cases that might undermine their ability to simply revoke your right to a trial etc whenever they want.
BaronIveagh wrote: Well, so much for a trial by Jury. The suspect will not be given Miranda.
I guess that gov feels it has a weak case then. We'll go directly to military interrogations.
A joint FBI/CIA interrogation unit that President Barack Obama established to handle terrorism cases has been activated and is on the scene, the DOJ official added. “The high value detained interrogation group is on site,” the official said.
Let the hypocrisy begin.
BaronIveagh wrote: That manner of thinking is outmoded, old boy. Don't you know, there's a new way, where your 'rights' are more like... guidelines that the government can take away any time they like! Trials to dertermine guilt are over rated. WE just try you in the press and then you disappear to a new homeland in the east.
*begins whistling 'Der Horstwessellied'.*
BaronIveagh wrote: No, because they have also denied him the right to representation, which is a little more far reaching. Remember that Miranda is more than just 'right to remain'. If they get a confession out of him (or beat one out of him) it's not admissible. The problem is that they're also not allowing him a lawyer to be present while the new CIA/FBI co-op works him over, which will probably determine what legal venue he gets remanded to. Which is a much bigger deal.
darkPrince010 wrote: Oh good, being trained to kill and in the job description makes it not-murder. Glad that got cleared up.
Correct. Soldiers are subject to military laws during war, not peacetime civilian laws. Therefore a killing carried out in line with the rules of war and the rules of engagement is not murder.
Wow, apparently I should have marked that last post of mine with /sarcasm. Don't see why killing another human is ever not-murder, regardless of circumstance, but that's a discussion for another thread and would be drifting further OT.
BaronIveagh wrote: So far though I have not heard any evidence actually linking them with the shot officer.
I assume you mean the MIT officer. There's a lot of evidence linking them with shooting the transit cop.
And, who gives a gak? You're aware they were involved in a running battle with police, involving their use of firearms and explosives, right?
Indeed, there may or may not be any solid evidence linking them to the bombings(besides the testimony of the carjacking victim) but they did kill an officer, engage in a gun battle with police, and use hand made explosives in a residential area. That alone is enough to land him in jail for live, or even potentially the Death Penelty.
He is going down for something. He's never going to leave prison, one way or another. He'll either get the Death Penelty, Life, or the other inmates will get him before which ever sentence is carried out.
1. He is not a enemy combatant even though some republican urging Obama to view him as such.
2. He can't stand before a Military Tribunal because he is an an american citizen unless we DeNats him
3. Since IED's that were used falls under WMD catagory and mini pipe bombs (Frags) its Federal Court
4. Chemo drugs/pain meds induce rant
.......................................
We can actually pick this whole nightmare apart and everyone going to have different view points..Real question though. Do we, as in, United States have a well organize or semi organize terrorist unit forming or formed on our soil. If we do have a terrorist organization operating on US soil how far are we willing to give up certain rights as US Citizens to help dismantle the group. I do believe the Immigration Reform thats currently being kicked around in the House and Senate needs to be gone over again. ICE and the other branches of Immigration need to enforce the laws already in the books and not be held back (punish) from doing so
Probably not, but the arguments for a mistrial will not be heard. For a start tt was argued that some 'celebrity' defendants like OJ Simpson couldn't get a fair trial because of local media interest making dispassion amongst jurors impossible, a lawyer could try to argue same, but unlike OJ there is a national motive for this not to wash. Tsarnaev already is the bomber according to the press, this shouldn't matter too much if the case is solid enough but offers room for a savvy lawyer which while highly unlikely to secure his cleients release is likerly to purt some shadow over the justice of ther proceedings..
The other reason why the trial itself may be suspect is the methods used by US intelligence in bringing cases to trial. Convicted 9/11 bombers Zacharias Moussaoui's trial judge made claim that the conviction was unsafe and a retrial should be ordered, which was not only denied but appeal was also denied, as this is largely a techicality and we are discussing an 9/11 bomber in this case not many people lose sleep over it.
We don't know what methodolgies will be used for evidence preparation, but some measures that waive the rightds of the accused are already in place so there is room for doubting the authenticity of evidence in the future.
I personally think it was a mistake to use the 'public defence' get out to avoid the suspects pre-trial rights. Its not like her is going anywhere and it wont hurt to get him a lawyer.
The EU has frequently refused US extradition requests of terrorist suspects due to concerns over the clarity of court cases related to 'War on Terror', this is hurting US relations. Personally I think the trial will be fair enough for what we can already prove, but the verdict will likely have a cloud of question marks over it.
Will Tsarnaev survive prison?
Ultimately no because failing some global peace settlement or societal collapse he will die in prison, if convicted.
However as he is likely to go to Florence Colorado ADX, if convicted, it is likely he will never even see another prisoner, let alone get into a lethal fight with one.
BaronIveagh wrote: Actually probably not with what we know they can prove. And, again, while the press is trying to cram a round peg in a square hole trying to shape the narrative they want to tell, the story so far does not add up.
I honestly have no idea what you're talking about.
baron where you the guy at all the press conferences asking if this was all a flase flag operation? Dude took part in the murder of a cop....was in a high speed chase with police exchanging gun fire and throwing home made nades...all through a residential area. Even if the stars align perfectly and they cant prove he took part in the bombing that stuff alone has him looking at a lot of prison time.
Because the US is still, despite what some asshats on the internet would advise, a nation of laws where before we start flaying people alive, they have have their day in court. Until such time as he is found guilty by a Jury of his peers, he's innocent. If you bother to even do the barest of research on the subject, you might find that, on occasion, the media is full of bs and the government tells what ever lies it deems convenient. Anyone remember Kill Ratios? That My Lai (irony!) Massacre as a enemy rumor and the people talking about it were un American traitors? What the Definition of 'is' is?
Until someone shows you actual proof, remain skeptical. Remember that we have all been down this road before with the press and a bombing. Granted, if what has been reported is, in fact, true, it makes them look guilty, I agree. So far though I have not heard any evidence actually linking them with the shot officer.
Kilkrazy wrote:
If they had stayed in Chechnya and confined their attacks to the Russian forces, they would have been legal combatants (not that that would make any difference to the Russians) but by bombing civilians in the US they have made themselves simply criminals.
Well, one, these guys were not, as far as we know, actually associated with Chechen rebel organizations. Thus, criminals no matter how you cut it.
...
That doesn't follow. International law recognises the right of civilians not belonging to the armed forces of a country to take up arms against an invader. You don't have to join a pre-existing rebel organisation.
Orlanth wrote: I personally think it was a mistake to use the 'public defence' get out to avoid the suspects pre-trial rights. Its not like her is going anywhere and it wont hurt to get him a lawyer.
The EU has frequently refused US extradition requests of terrorist suspects due to concerns over the clarity of court cases related to 'War on Terror', this is hurting US relations. Personally I think the trial will be fair enough for what we can already prove, but the verdict will likely have a cloud of question marks over it.
If the news I saw is accurate (HA!) then the issue was getting info on other bombs and/or conspirators. That's the "Public Safety" exeption to Miranda that you may have been hearing about.
My dad said the two 'suspects' had been in Russia for some months and--after he watches CNN, he said that the two were hired by a group of International Muslim terrorist cell, Does this falls to High Treason?
If he's convicted, won't he been shipped to Terre Haute, IN ? where the federal supermax is. Isn't Terre Haute closer to NEC than that lil city of Colorado?
EDIT:
1. He also said the two are easter-european-type muslim chechens.
2. Even if he's really works for the enemy outside country, I don't think he will testify against his own 'masters' since it brings no good to him, he won't get leniency and it is likely that he will be henked. No leniency for High Treason unless the President chose to spare him. but does the Constitution let him do the same thing leaders of lesser nations do? 'Rat Protection Program' does not protect criminals of High Treason I think.
Jihadin wrote: He can't stand before a Military Tribunal because he is an an american citizen unless we DeNats him
There is no functional way to remove American citizenship from an (unwilling) American citizen. We've gone over this before; it's essentially not possible.
Jihadin wrote: Do we, as in, United States have a well organize or semi organize terrorist unit forming or formed on our soil. If we do have a terrorist organization operating on US soil how far are we willing to give up certain rights as US Citizens to help dismantle the group.
Honest question - why is this always the default stance of right wing types? That our country, which has stood for 237 years and rose above such events as the nation's capital, include the White House, being burned to the ground - is essentially a fragile experiment just waiting for the first jerk with a pipebomb to require we give up our dangerous freedoms to combat them?
Ouze wrote: Honest question - why is this always the default stance of right wing types? That our country, which has stood for 237 years and rose above such events as the nation's capital, include the White House, being burned to the ground - is essentially a fragile experiment just waiting for the first jerk with a pipebomb to require we give up our dangerous freedoms to combat them?
It isn't, first and foremost.
Secondly, if you happened to read any popular left-leaning sites between Monday and Friday, you would've seen a lot of assumptions that this was a right-wing pro-Tea Party nutter, and the call to suspend a variety of "right wing" rights was pretty strong there, too.
As ever, both sides do it, but it's so much more reassuring to pretend it's only the other guys.
What random websites were posting over the last couple of days is immaterial to my response to what Jihadin posted on this site, in this thread, on this page.
Ouze wrote: What random websites were posting over the last couple of days is immaterial to my response to what Jihadin posted on this site, in this thread, on this page.
Which was enough for you to conclude it was his default stance?
So no more than your usual amount of due diligence, I see.
Which was enough for you to conclude it was his default stance?
So no more than your usual amount of due diligence, I see.
Personal attacks to obfuscate a lack of a leg to stand on aside...
The fact that a very broad swath of the US does seem to espouse the idea that people need to give up their rights (The Left wants to be done with the right to bear arms so that we can be 'safe' from criminals and mad men. The Right wants us to give up Due Process and Unreasonable Search and Seizure to make us 'safe' from terrorists) is highly disturbing.
The sad part is there are gullible idiots out there who really believe that these things are actually needed.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamen Franklin
"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it." - Josph Goebbels
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
Lone Cat wrote: My dad said the two 'suspects' had been in Russia for some months and--after he watches CNN, he said that the two were hired by a group of International Muslim terrorist cell, Does this falls to High Treason?
If he's convicted, won't he been shipped to Terre Haute, IN ? where the federal supermax is. Isn't Terre Haute closer to NEC than that lil city of Colorado?
EDIT:
1. He also said the two are easter-european-type muslim chechens.
2. Even if he's really works for the enemy outside country, I don't think he will testify against his own 'masters' since it brings no good to him, he won't get leniency and it is likely that he will be henked. No leniency for High Treason unless the President chose to spare him. but does the Constitution let him do the same thing leaders of lesser nations do? 'Rat Protection Program' does not protect criminals of High Treason I think.
Did you not read the rest of the thread again? It's been established that they've been in the US for years, and were naturalised citizens (I may have gotten the level of itizenship wrong). As of yet we have no knowledge of a motive, apart from the usual lot going "thems mooslims, theys turr'rist jeehaders".
Did you not read the rest of the thread again? It's been established that they've been in the US for years, and were naturalised citizens (I may have gotten the level of itizenship wrong). As of yet we have no knowledge of a motive, apart from the usual lot going "thems mooslims, theys turr'rist jeehaders".
Evidence of guilt and due process don't seem to matter around here. 'We saw it on the TV! Let's grab them there mooslims and hang 'em high! YEEEEHAAAWWW!"
Isn't being a radicalized Muslim itself a motive? It would seem that the radicalization includes a 'call to jihad' and indoctrination towards violence as a means to answer that call. Plenty of examples of this, it isn't something new.
Or are you looking for a reason they became radicalized? Or a reason they chose the specific target they did?
Automatically Appended Next Post: As for 'right wingers' wanting to get rid of the 4th amendment, I could not disagree more. Compared to many on Dakka I'm pretty far right, and I have even argued against drug testing for welfare recipients because of 4th Amendment issues. As a citizen, this guy is entitled to the process due, the question is what is that due process for this case?
As for Miranda rights in this particular case, I point to the following as a decent article:
A lot of people assume that the police are required to read a suspect his Miranda rights upon arrest. That is, they assume that one of a person’s rights is the right to be read their rights. It often happens that way on Law & Order, but that’s not what the law actually requires. The police aren’t required to follow Miranda. Miranda is a set of rules the government can chose to follow if they want to admit a person’s statements in a criminal case in court, not a set of rules they have to follow in every case. Under Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S. 760 (2003), it is lawful for the police to not read a suspect his Miranda rights, interrogate him, and then obtain a statement. Chavez holds that a person’s Miranda rights are violated only if the statement is admitted in court, even if the statement is obtained in violation of Miranda. See id. at 772-73. Further, the prosecution is even allowed to admit any physical evidence discovered as a fruit of the statement obtained in violation of Miranda — only the actual statement can be excluded. See United States v. Patane, 542 U.S. 630 (2004). So, contrary to what a lot of people think, it is legal for the government to even intentionally violate Miranda so long as they don’t try to seek admission of the suspect’s statements in court.
I think we need to see how the Gov't proceeds in the prosecution and quit using knowledge gained from Law and Order and other TV and movies as a basis for arguments.
CptJake wrote: Isn't being a radicalized Muslim itself a motive? It would seem that the radicalization includes a 'call to jihad' and indoctrination towards violence as a means to answer that call. Plenty of examples of this, it isn't something new.
Or are you looking for a reason they became radicalized? Or a reason they chose the specific target they did?
Because 'radicalized muslim' is just a buzz phrase for people who embrace Islam and don't like X (whatever nation or other religion X might be).
These people were not in some far off corner of the world that had never seen an American until they came here and blew themselves up because they were told we were attacking Islam. Nor were they from a place where Americans did come and rape and murder (and there are disgraces to the Uniform who have done just that) their families.
There's no logical reason for them to be 'radicalized' against the US. It's a big jump from 'I don't understand them' to 'let's murder a bunch of them'.
And I'm aware that there are people on both the right and left that do not want to take away people's rights, but there are a lot who do, and some of them sit in Washington with titles like 'Congressman'.
I don't think you're the only one wondering. One minute he's telling us all that
BaronIveagh wrote: Because the US is still, despite what some asshats on the internet would advise, a nation of laws where before we start flaying people alive, they have have their day in court.
And up until that point it was tinfoil on head posts like; (etc)
Dready, if you can't figure out by now that I post in a overly dramatic and HIGHLY sarcastic manner on the subject of how 'trustworthy and fair' everyone's friend Uncle Sam is, please rent a clue. The fact of the matter is that no one in the right mind should simply accept that everything their government chooses to tell them is the truth. Hell, I think we can all name instances where the government of the United States has practiced, at the very least, hypocrisy, and if you get down to it, more than a few serious crimes, and palmed off blame on some shmuck or simply ignored the whole thing for decades while it worked it's way through the court.
Maybe I've been living in places where you ARE guilty until proven innocent and Police can break into your house and beat the living gak out of you, at will, too long. Some of them are even located within the United States boarders, so I've seen what 'American Police' are like when they're no longer constrained by a suspects 'rights' (after all, shooting a man in the back six times doesn't count if he's an 'Injun', right?). it got so bad in New York that New York State Troopers lost thier ability to apprehend on reservations , and must at all times be escorted by Native Marshals now, since they beat an unarmed suspect to death.
The idea that they might be freed of the fetters of the suspects rights in other places in the US horrifies me, and for good reason.
I wish I could take the time to go see the trial in person but I can't and so I am left to rely on the media for this...and I don't like that.
I don't trust the news or any other media outlet to give me what is really happening. I have seen them pass judgement on people who really turned out to be innocent; I have seen them contradict them selves in a matter of minutes without a "correction". All media outlets have an agenda in mind and it isn't about bringing you just news.
I have watched them report many things wrong with this bombing and not once did they stop and go "Maybe we should calm down and wait before we take up torches and pitchforks?".
Radicalized Islamist is not just a buzz word for Muslims that don't like X.
Read up on the radicalization of the Chechens and the Pankisi Gorge region for examples of what I mean by radicalization
Huge difference between the Chechen separatists before and after the radicalization. They went from a nationalist to a jihad against non-Muslims philosophy. They quite literally believe in spreading Islam through violence against those who will not submit. The US is a valid target in their mind and target selection very much includes civilian targets, those are legitimate in their eyes.
Yes, these guys largely grew up in the US, that has no bearing on the fact that they became radicalized. Older brother probably lead the charge but clearly he embraced the jihadi message.
The radicalization is not against any specific country, it is a overall embracing of the more violent tenants of Islam as preached by a subset of Imams. The actions they are encouraged to take range from passive and active support to more action oriented cells/organizations through suicide bombings and other attacks. Often they are encouraged to develop their own targets and attack (may be the case here).
CptJake wrote: The radicalization is not against any specific country, it is a overall embracing of the more violent tenants of Islam as preached by a subset of Imams. The actions they are encouraged to take range from passive and active support to more action oriented cells/organizations through suicide bombings and other attacks. Often they are encouraged to develop their own targets and attack (may be the case here).
I've seen people get plenty 'radicalized' without them even being Muslim. Anyone can be 'radicalized' by a charismatic leader, or the appropriate motivation, but the problem is that these things seem to be lacking in this case. Further, it really helps if they have little to no exposure to the culture in question. It's hard to convince someone that his neighbor of ten years is the great Satan when he sits at your dining room table every other Sunday and helps you with the lawn work.
And, again, I point out that 'radicalized Muslims' would have shot the guy they car jacked without a second thought.
ProtoClone wrote: I wish I could take the time to go see the trial in person but I can't and so I am left to rely on the media for this...and I don't like that.
I don't trust the news or any other media outlet to give me what is really happening. I have seen them pass judgement on people who really turned out to be innocent; I have seen them contradict them selves in a matter of minutes without a "correction". All media outlets have an agenda in mind and it isn't about bringing you just news.
I have watched them report many things wrong with this bombing and not once did they stop and go "Maybe we should calm down and wait before we take up torches and pitchforks?".
I am not 100% convinced.
Under what circumstances do you think an individual can shoot at police officers and throw IEDs and not be guilty of some crime, even if it's only that one?
Ouze wrote: What random websites were posting over the last couple of days is immaterial to my response to what Jihadin posted on this site, in this thread, on this page.
Which was enough for you to conclude it was his default stance?
Is this a serious post? You're asking me to conclude if Jihadin actually meant the words he said? I mean, i've seen some pretty weak rebuttals, but come now, at least try and meaningfully participate, although historically I realize that would be a stretch.
There are an awful lot of people on this forum, who I think could safely consider to be right-wing, who are going on about their poor hurt fee-fees because everyone assumed that it was a right wing domestic terrorist. Well, guess what - everyone assumed that because statistically, it'saprettygoodguess for the last 5 years. While the radical jihadists like to think big, for pure frequency, it's usually a guy who has a radio preset for Rush Limbaugh who is just sure the secret muslin in the white house is going to take his guns.
CptJake wrote: The radicalization is not against any specific country, it is a overall embracing of the more violent tenants of Islam as preached by a subset of Imams. The actions they are encouraged to take range from passive and active support to more action oriented cells/organizations through suicide bombings and other attacks. Often they are encouraged to develop their own targets and attack (may be the case here).
I've seen people get plenty 'radicalized' without them even being Muslim. Anyone can be 'radicalized' by a charismatic leader, or the appropriate motivation, but the problem is that these things seem to be lacking in this case. Further, it really helps if they have little to no exposure to the culture in question. It's hard to convince someone that his neighbor of ten years is the great Satan when he sits at your dining room table every other Sunday and helps you with the lawn work.
And, again, I point out that 'radicalized Muslims' would have shot the guy they car jacked without a second thought.
Disagree with the last point. The very well could have wanted the guy panicking and spreading the word at a that point, killing him served no tactical purpose. Their IDs were released which seems to have been a trigger to go out swinging. What better way to get the cops mobilized and running into the IEDs...
As for the first point. what you have seen makes no difference and has no bearing on this case. In this case the radicalization was Islamic in nature from what we know. And there is plenty of indication of the 'charismatic leader' (to include the fact they WERE radicalized Islamists...). Again, between the youtube channels and other electronic social media and computer records we've seen so far, older brother seems to have sought that out. His trip over seas not too long ago was to a region where it is entirely likely he met up with a 'charismatic leader', I'm sure we'll find out more about that in the coming months. The Russians seemed to believe he had contact with someone that would fit your discription when they gave us the nod to check him out a couple years ago.
Again, right now we do not know, but the indicators point that way. Very often when it comes to this stuff, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, means it is a duck.
Under what circumstances do you think an individual can shoot at police officers and throw IEDs and not be guilty of some crime, even if it's only that one?
You have to understand, all we know is that the police are saying he did these things to the press, but not actually offering any proof. Until there is proof, he's not guilty of a damn thing.
There are an awful lot of people on this forum, who I think could safely consider to be right-wing, who are going on about their poor hurt fee-fees because everyone assumed that it was a right wing domestic terrorist. Well, guess what - everyone assumed that because statistically, it'saprettygoodguess for the last 5 years. While the radical jihadists like to think big, for pure frequency, it's usually a guy who has a radio preset for Rush Limbaugh who is just sure the secret muslin in the white house is going to take his guns.
Except in this case the attack, to include target selection, did not fit the right wing template at all.
Except in this case the attack, to include target selection, did not fit the right wing template at all.
My turn to disagree.
The selection of an event taking place on a holiday commemorating the Battles of Lexington and Concord pretty much nails the whole 'New Revolution' symbolism cold.
'A shot heard 'round the world.'
If you're a US based domestic terror group that wants to overthrow the US government and cloaks itself in the symbols of the American revolution, that's a pretty good one to announce to the world that the fight is on.
ProtoClone wrote: I wish I could take the time to go see the trial in person but I can't and so I am left to rely on the media for this...and I don't like that.
I don't trust the news or any other media outlet to give me what is really happening. I have seen them pass judgement on people who really turned out to be innocent; I have seen them contradict them selves in a matter of minutes without a "correction". All media outlets have an agenda in mind and it isn't about bringing you just news.
I have watched them report many things wrong with this bombing and not once did they stop and go "Maybe we should calm down and wait before we take up torches and pitchforks?".
I am not 100% convinced.
Under what circumstances do you think an individual can shoot at police officers and throw IEDs and not be guilty of some crime, even if it's only that one?
This is what the news has told us and what was told to them. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I am not 100% convinced.
To be fair, right wing extremists aren't the same as right wing, though it doesn't help when non-partisan, non-political entities talk about the rise of right wing radicals and the non-radical right wing seems that they are talking about them.
Except in this case the attack, to include target selection, did not fit the right wing template at all.
My turn to disagree.
The selection of an event taking place on a holiday commemorating the Battles of Lexington and Concord pretty much nails the whole 'New Revolution' symbolism cold.
'A shot heard 'round the world.'
But again, target selection completely negates that, as does the attack template used. And the date was NOT the target, the event was. The Marathon was gonna get hit on the 12th, the 20th, or whatever date it was. 'New Revolution' types do not attack that type of target, or at least have not done so yet.
When looking at dates, I submit you need to look outside your comfort box as well. 15 April 1992, Talibs take Kabul. 15 April 2012, Talibs stage massive attacks in Kabul to celebrate the 20 year anniversary and make a point that the coalition and Gov't of Afghanistan cannot protect the people.. See, dates can have more than one significance. If the target section and attack template don't fit the ideology you associate with the date, there is a HUGE chance the date was either not significant to the attacking group or that you chose the wrong significance.
(I do not think the date in this case was significant at all, the target was the target regardless of date.(
BaronIveagh wrote: Dready, if you can't figure out by now that I post in a overly dramatic and HIGHLY sarcastic manner on the subject of how 'trustworthy and fair' everyone's friend Uncle Sam is, please rent a clue.
Yeah, because deadpan delivery of the same subject matter repeatedly with no indication of sarcasm is effective.... Especially when you keep throwing out things like;
BaronIveagh wrote: Evidence of guilt and due process don't seem to matter around here. 'We saw it on the TV! Let's grab them there mooslims and hang 'em high! YEEEEHAAAWWW!"
And this is after saying that you would have done the same as the two alleged perpetrators did to the Police
CptJake wrote: And the date was NOT the target, the event was. The Marathon was gonna get hit on the 12th, the 20th, or whatever date it was.
Do you know that definitively? I hadn't heard that kind of motive information, but I tend to not follow the news as closely when my weekend as begun, i.e. saturday afternoon. It's rare I'm even on Dakka on a non-work Sunday.
But again, target selection completely negates that, as does the attack template used. And the date was NOT the target, the event was. The Marathon was gonna get hit on the 12th, the 20th, or whatever date it was. 'New Revolution' types do not attack that type of target, or at least have not done so yet.
No, but it's also not unheard of for US terrorists to hit that sort of target either. Look at the Wall Street and Los Angeles Times (ironically this one was also carried out by two brothers) bombings. And remember, just because they've never done something before doesn't mean they didn't. After all, 9/11 came out of the blue too.
And this is after saying that you would have done the same as the two alleged perpetrators did to the Police
And before that I pointed out that I would also not have put myself in their situation to begin with and have probably already left the country by the time the FBI Id'd them if I was the bomber.
However, if I had no idea how to escape and evade, like these guys apparently didn't, and I was of the opinion that the police were not likely to try and take me alive, regardless of guilt, then yes, i would do the same thing.
Ouze wrote: Yes, I'm aware. I was simply pointing out that, due to recent events, the right wing has no right getting butthurt that people assumed it was them.
Ouze... buddy...
It was epidemic...
The folks are the far left practically begged for it to be a rightwing-teaparty extremist... so that they can prove that the rights are wrong all along. All you had to do is look at any mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, any left of center website).
Then, you have those on the right speculating that it's an elaborate AQ terror cell right off the bat...
Early on it's just a clusterfeth with regards with the new's agency and social media.
Ouze wrote: Yes, I'm aware. I was simply pointing out that, due to recent events, the right wing has no right getting butthurt that people assumed it was them.
Ouze... buddy...
It was epidemic...
The folks are the far left practically begged for it to be a rightwing-teaparty extremist... so that they can prove that the rights are wrong all along. All you had to do is look at any mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, any left of center website).
Then, you have those on the right speculating that it's an elaborate AQ terror cell right off the bat...
Early on it's just a clusterfeth with regards with the new's agency and social media.
And you had those on the far right calling it a conspiracy and the work of the president...
Ouze wrote: Yes, I'm aware. I was simply pointing out that, due to recent events, the right wing has no right getting butthurt that people assumed it was them.
Ouze... buddy...
It was epidemic...
The folks are the far left practically begged for it to be a rightwing-teaparty extremist... so that they can prove that the rights are wrong all along. All you had to do is look at any mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, any left of center website).
Then, you have those on the right speculating that it's an elaborate AQ terror cell right off the bat...
Early on it's just a clusterfeth with regards with the new's agency and social media.
And you had those on the far right calling it a conspiracy and the work of the president...
Yeah, I know...that's why I stated it was a clusterfeth...
Everyone is trying to stake a position that their world view is right before any evidence is accurately identified... hence... cluster.feth.all.over.
Wall Street Journal is running an article that the Caucasian Mujahadeen is denying all involvement with this and reiterating that they have no quarrel with the US (or Christianity), that their beef is with Russia (and they elaborate on some Russian war crimes that I have no trouble believing but again, will never see go before the International War-crimes Court).
ProtoClone wrote: This is what the news has told us and what was told to them. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I am not 100% convinced.
See, trouble is, some of us were listening to the scanner feed that evening. Unless you're suggesting the Boston cops put on one of the better radio dramas of the modern age in an effort to further this conspiracy, it just doesn't hold water.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Is this a serious post? You're asking me to conclude if Jihadin actually meant the words he said?
Nope. Try actually reading next time.
You said that people with right-wing tendencies show an alarming proclivity to exchange certain rights for protection from terrorism. (I'm improving the language a lot, obviously.) When I pointed out the left does the same, you started shrieking about how you were only talking about Jihadin on this specific forum. Aside from being shockingly disingenuous - what else is new? - it brings up the troubling question of how you can detect a trend from one single post, so I asked how, exactly, you were doing that.
See, trouble is, some of us were listening to the scanner feed that evening. Unless you're suggesting the Boston cops put on one of the better radio dramas of the modern age in an effort to further this conspiracy, it just doesn't hold water.
People also listened to War of the Worlds and got ready for the Martian Invasion.
I once saw a magic act where it looked and sounded like a man caught a bullet with his bare hand.
That's why hearing something on the scanner isn't proof. Hell, if it was, at least one policeman I can think of would be in jail for murdering someone. (Too bad the police recording of that day 'disappeared')
People also listened to War of the Worlds and got ready for the Martian Invasion.
I once saw a magic act where it looked and sounded like a man caught a bullet with his bare hand.
That's why hearing something on the scanner isn't proof. Hell, if it was, at least one policeman I can think of would be in jail for murdering someone. (Too bad the police recording of that day 'disappeared')
And that's where you lose me, because you're suggesting a massive conspiracy to frame two guys.
Hopefully we can get some real answers once the younger brother is stable enough for interrogation by the specialist team the Feds have lined-up waiting for him... By the sounds of it, they've got a mix of the FBI's BAU, (not to be confused with CBS's version), CIA & Pentagon agents waiting to have at it.
On the other hand, politicians of all stripes need to stop this kind of BS because it's not helping and is based on nothing but junk; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XRO4UGSiQo
Ahtman wrote: To be fair, right wing extremists aren't the same as right wing, though it doesn't help when non-partisan, non-political entities talk about the rise of right wing radicals and the non-radical right wing seems that they are talking about them.
Well, it's not much different than the vast majority of Muslims who have to suffer because people stick them in the same group as the radicalized jihadists.
The folks are the far left practically begged for it to be a rightwing-teaparty extremist... so that they can prove that the rights are wrong all along. All you had to do is look at any mainstream media (NBC, CNN, ABC, NYT, any left of center website).
Then, you have those on the right speculating that it's an elaborate AQ terror cell right off the bat...
Early on it's just a clusterfeth with regards with the new's agency and social media.
BaronIveagh wrote: And before that I pointed out that I would also not have put myself in their situation to begin with and have probably already left the country by the time the FBI Id'd them if I was the bomber.
However, if I had no idea how to escape and evade, like these guys apparently didn't, and I was of the opinion that the police were not likely to try and take me alive, regardless of guilt, then yes, i would do the same thing.
And peacefully surrendering through an attorney, or accompanied with a journalist to prove your name is a wholly unreasonable idea compared to the spontaneous building of bombs and shooting police?
BaronIveagh wrote: I'm saying what you think you heard might not be what actually happened.
So far you've managed to say that you think Putin could have done it too, so was be in league with the Boston PD and the FBI and the US government?
And peacefully surrendering through an attorney, or accompanied with a journalist to prove your name is a wholly unreasonable idea compared to the spontaneous building of bombs and shooting police?
Those two options require that you calmly consider your options. Calm rational thinking was probably not going on at this point.
So far you've managed to say that you think Putin could have done it too, so was be in league with the Boston PD and the FBI and the US government?
No, I've said hat Putin is certainly cold blooded enough to order someone to bomb a US sporting event if he thought he had something to gain by it.. There's a difference. I do like how you fall back to straw men a lot though.
What I have said, fairly consistently so far, is that you're rushing to judgement, without possession of all the facts, and that doing so has led to people being falsely accused in the past.
How do we now that the whole thing didn't start off with '*BLAM* *BLAM* STOP! *BLAM* POLICE!' (Something I've seen panicking officers do) for example?
Facts that we actually have:
A witness stated a man matching the description of the older brother placed at least one of the devices. Both brothers were spotted by cameras at the event, but none seem to have caught them in the act.
Someone shot and killed a MIT campus cop. No actual proof linking the two events has been presented, yet.
Unknown events lead to a high speed chase, where supposedly the suspects use pipe bombs to try and discourage police pursuit. (Note that these IEDs are not the same as the ones used in the bombing, and are easy to make, quickly). One officer is injured. One suspect is killed. The other is badly wounded.
Those are, so far, the only things we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt actually happened.
BaronIveagh wrote: People also listened to War of the Worlds and got ready for the Martian Invasion.
No, they didn't. That was all a propaganda bit to build buzz for Orson Welles' radio show.
Stop and think about how mind-blowingly insane what you're suggesting is: that the police engaged in a massive bit of theatre and deception by thousands of people, most whom probably couldn't act their way out of a paper bag?
Sure, there's no 100% perfect evidence they were behind the bombing, but they were sitting on a pile of materials of the sort used in the bombs, they both fit the profile of a first-world terrorist to a t, and oh yeah they ran out and started a running shootout with police, in which they hurled bombs at them.
BaronIveagh wrote: Those two options require that you calmly consider your options. Calm rational thinking was probably not going on at this point.
But making, preparing explosives and a firearm was a better choice?
BaronIveagh wrote: No, I've said hat Putin is certainly cold blooded enough to order someone to bomb a US sporting event if he thought he had something to gain by it.. There's a difference. I do like how you fall back to straw men a lot though.
And I like how you mis-represent what I say to accuse me of a strawman argument. You said;
BaronIveagh wrote: A bit far fetched... but I can actually picture Putin doing something like that, as he's cold blooded enough that if he thought it would work...
You then make accusations that the suspect will be disappeared into Gitmo, that he'll be in front of a military court, that he'll be deprived of his legal rights, that he might even turn up dead and then start talking about police and FBI cover ups. Please tell me what does not sound like conspiracy theory in what you've said?
What I did was ask you a question to try and show just how ridiculous your position on this has been. Turns out that there are some things beyond parody.
BaronIveagh wrote: What I have said, fairly consistently so far, is that you're rushing to judgement, without possession of all the facts, and that doing so has led to people being falsely accused in the past.
I'm rushing to judgement? Please show me exactly where I said that he was guilty. If you can't then it seems you're the one engaging in strawman arguments.
BaronIveagh wrote: How do we now that the whole thing didn't start off with '*BLAM* *BLAM* STOP! *BLAM* POLICE!' (Something I've seen panicking officers do) for example?
How do we know it did? Oh wait, we don't. You're letting your prejudices colour your view of the facts (constant references to Police and FBI incompetence and cover up)
A witness stated a man matching the description of the older brother placed at least one of the devices. Both brothers were spotted by cameras at the event, but none seem to have caught them in the act.
Someone shot and killed a MIT campus cop. No actual proof linking the two events has been presented, yet.
Unknown events lead to a high speed chase, where supposedly the suspects use pipe bombs to try and discourage police pursuit. (Note that these IEDs are not the same as the ones used in the bombing, and are easy to make, quickly). One officer is injured. One suspect is killed. The other is badly wounded.
Those are, so far, the only things we can say beyond a shadow of a doubt actually happened.
So because the pipe bombs used by the suspects weren't constructed out of pressure cookers then bingo, they cannot be connected to the bombing? So is it common to have a stash of ready made pipe bombs just sitting around on the off chance that the police want to question you? I'm not a US citizen so if this is something that I need to know when I apply for citizenship in a few years it'll be useful to know. Just so we're clear is the etiquette that I detonate them when they come to my door and ask to speak to me, or will hearing about it from a 3rd party suffice? You are correct that a lot of the facts are still not confirmed, more will come to light as the suspect is questioned and details are given to the press. However the facts as the stand, including the actions of the two suspects, is highly damning. Innocent people are not likely to flee. They are even less likely to have a cache of home made explosives and engage in a gun fight with police.
I haven't said that the suspects are innocent or guilty. I have said that they should be brought before I judge. I even encouraged people to keep an open mind - but in your case I'm not sure if you are being deliberately contrary, or whether you still maintain that the actions of the suspects are reasonable.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: No, they didn't. That was all a propaganda bit to build buzz for Orson Welles' radio show.
Stop and think about how mind-blowingly insane what you're suggesting is: that the police engaged in a massive bit of theatre and deception by thousands of people, most whom probably couldn't act their way out of a paper bag?
Not just the police, but also the FBI, ATF, National Guard and other agencies. So potentially thousands of individuals took part in a conspiracy (and the more people know about it the risk of leak grows exponentially) where no motive is known, for an unknown end.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: [
Stop and think about how mind-blowingly insane what you're suggesting is: that the police engaged in a massive bit of theatre and deception by thousands of people, most whom probably couldn't act their way out of a paper bag?
Sure, there's no 100% perfect evidence they were behind the bombing, but they were sitting on a pile of materials of the sort used in the bombs, they both fit the profile of a first-world terrorist to a t, and oh yeah they ran out and started a running shootout with police, in which they hurled bombs at them.
One, the bombs that they were found with were of a different type. The 'pile of material' was a single pressure cooker found in their house (no credible details yet on type or quantity explosives that I have seen so far though I may have missed it)
Two, I've listened as well, and heard a lot of officers saying what they thought was going on, which might or might not be what actually happened. No theater required, just a lot of Adrenalin and a gunfight in the dark. After all, thousands of people didn't see it, they only heard the cops description of events over the police band. Were 'thousands' of police directly involved in the chase? No, most likely only a handful were actually involved on the scene initially.
You then make accusations that the suspect will be disappeared into Gitmo, that he'll be in front of a military court, that he'll be deprived of his legal rights,
The fact that that exact outcome has been pitched by members of Congress to the President and in front of the press.
I'm rushing to judgement? Please show me exactly where I said that he was guilty. If you can't then it seems you're the one engaging in strawman arguments.
Let him have his day in Court with all the evidence before him so any cries of victimhood will pale by comparison to the evil that he wrought on innocent people.
So because the pipe bombs used by the suspects weren't constructed out of pressure cookers then bingo, they cannot be connected to the bombing?
If they don't contain the same type of explosive (and such is not found in their home, etc), yes, actually that could be a serious problem for the prosecutor.
Dreadclaw69 wrote: So is it common to have a stash of ready made pipe bombs just sitting around on the off chance that the police want to question you? I'm not a US citizen so if this is something that I need to know when I apply for citizenship in a few years it'll be useful to know. Just so we're clear is the etiquette that I detonate them when they come to my door and ask to speak to me, or will hearing about it from a 3rd party suffice?
Well, one, how do you know they were ready made and not, say, produced after seeing their faces all over the news? Two, it's always best to confirm a target with your own eyes before pushing the plunger. I recommend you hold the bomb tight in your hand when you do it.
You are correct that a lot of the facts are still not confirmed, more will come to light as the suspect is questioned and details are given to the press. However the facts as the stand, including the actions of the two suspects, is highly damning. Innocent people are not likely to flee. They are even less likely to have a cache of home made explosives and engage in a gun fight with police.
Yes, but in this case guilty people (at least ones with brain one) would have skipped town long before they were identified. They most definitely would have prepared a vehicle or means of escape in advance as well, rather than resort to a carjacking and stealing from the guy's ATM, which screams 'impromptu' to me. That and the fact they let him go. I'd have shot him to prevent him from running to call the police and report the vehicle stolen, buying me some time.
Grey Templar wrote: How about the guy who saw them tossing bombs outside his window?
If it's the one I'm thinking of, I'm not sure I buy it. He gives a lot of detail that most people wouldn't have noticed, but...
ProtoClone wrote: This is what the news has told us and what was told to them. Not saying it didn't happen, just that I am not 100% convinced.
See, trouble is, some of us were listening to the scanner feed that evening. Unless you're suggesting the Boston cops put on one of the better radio dramas of the modern age in an effort to further this conspiracy, it just doesn't hold water.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Is this a serious post? You're asking me to conclude if Jihadin actually meant the words he said?
Nope. Try actually reading next time.
You said that people with right-wing tendencies show an alarming proclivity to exchange certain rights for protection from terrorism. (I'm improving the language a lot, obviously.) When I pointed out the left does the same, you started shrieking about how you were only talking about Jihadin on this specific forum. Aside from being shockingly disingenuous - what else is new? - it brings up the troubling question of how you can detect a trend from one single post, so I asked how, exactly, you were doing that.
As expected, you had no relevant answer.
One is reminded of Orson Wells's production of War of the Worlds.
I agree, though. It is hard to conceive of the motive for the police to set off bombs at the marathon and then pretend to capture the people allegedly responsible.
Democrats and Republicans (members of Congress) both voted for the PATRIOT act. Of course it is supposedly a Democrat tendency to want to enlarge government power, and the Republicans are supposedly against that, but anyway...
At least we can rest comfortably knowing that the FBI still has a 100% track record when it comes to stopping attacks where they picked the perpetrators and supplied them with resources and targets.
Well, one, how do you know they were ready made and not, say, produced after seeing their faces all over the news? Two, it's always best to confirm a target with your own eyes before pushing the plunger. I recommend you hold the bomb tight in your hand when you do it.
The only real facepalm worthy thing is you thinking its probable for someone who is completely innocent to see their face on the news connected to a bomb plot and react by making bombs and having a shootout with the police.
Its as crazy of an idea as saying they would have reacted by going out and tap dancing in the middle of the street while juggling squirrels dressed as the Ghost of Christmas past.
The only conceivable reason I could see someone reacting like this is if they were either guilty of the crime they stand accused of OR they were already planning on committing an act of terror with bombs and there just happened to be a bizarre coincidence of someone else with the same idea hitting the marathon.
If it turns out that they really were completely innocent and on the spur of the moment manufactured these pipe bombs and had a shootout just because then I'll convert my entire GK army into Chaos GKs.
BaronIveagh wrote: Wall Street Journal is running an article that the Caucasian Mujahadeen is denying all involvement with this and reiterating that they have no quarrel with the US (or Christianity), that their beef is with Russia (and they elaborate on some Russian war crimes that I have no trouble believing but again, will never see go before the International War-crimes Court).
And after 9-11 AQ and the Talibs denied AQ had anything to do with the attack...
Ahtman wrote: To be fair, right wing extremists aren't the same as right wing, though it doesn't help when non-partisan, non-political entities talk about the rise of right wing radicals and the non-radical right wing seems that they are talking about them.
Well, it's not much different than the vast majority of Muslims who have to suffer because people stick them in the same group as the radicalized jihadists.
It is different in that you don't have a bunch of Muslim Congressmen condemning the reports and making it seem more like a political attack, and thus pretending there is no problem.
I agree, though. It is hard to conceive of the motive for the police to set off bombs at the marathon and then pretend to capture the people allegedly responsible.
I doubt that's the case as well. My main concern is that we've fixated on just two possible suspects this entire time who have provided a spectacular show for everyone to watch, with lots of people absolutely convinced that they're guilty as sin. God Help the FBI if they got it wrong.
The only real facepalm worthy thing is you thinking its probable for someone who is completely innocent to see their face on the news connected to a bomb plot and react by making bombs and having a shootout with the police.
Again, it makes perfect sense if you assume the police are not going to bother arresting you. Remember that one of the things they said in interviews was that they really still did not understand Americans. Frankly, if they assumed, in a panic, that the American police would do the same as the Russian police would, then any attempt to turn themselves in would be an automatic death sentence, guilty or no.
Well, one, how do you know they were ready made and not, say, produced after seeing their faces all over the news? Two, it's always best to confirm a target with your own eyes before pushing the plunger. I recommend you hold the bomb tight in your hand when you do it.
The only real facepalm worthy thing is you thinking its probable for someone who is completely innocent to see their face on the news connected to a bomb plot and react by making bombs and having a shootout with the police.
Its as crazy of an idea as saying they would have reacted by going out and tap dancing in the middle of the street while juggling squirrels dressed as the Ghost of Christmas past.
The only conceivable reason I could see someone reacting like this is if they were either guilty of the crime they stand accused of OR they were already planning on committing an act of terror with bombs and there just happened to be a bizarre coincidence of someone else with the same idea hitting the marathon.
If it turns out that they really were completely innocent and on the spur of the moment manufactured these pipe bombs and had a shootout just because then I'll convert my entire GK army into Chaos GKs.
Get out that greenstuff and start making spikes, because as I said earlier, I know of three different families who are nutter enough to do exactly this, despite that they are innocent currently of any actual crimes. Although a lot of the "The gubbiment is gonna take muh rights!" rhetoric is blown smoke from talking heads, there are some crazies out there (I had the very, very unfortunate mistake of rooming with one family in particular) who would start cutting the PVC to length and measuring their powder as soon as the first report with their name on it popped up on NPR or Drudge Report and gathering seeds to start their own compound off in the forest somewhere after breaking through the police line.
They are admittedly in the minority of most citizens, but I don't find it completely unbelievable that the accused bombers could have been of a similarly unhinged mindset. Unlikely? Probably, but certainly not impossible.
Nutters that would do exactly that tend to not live in cities. And I don't think they'd go actively looking for trouble but would rather sit in their house fortress and wait for the cops to come to them.
Nutters that would do exactly that tend to not live in cities. And I don't think they'd go actively looking for trouble but would rather sit in their house fortress and wait for the cops to come to them.
Yes, but we don't live in stereotypeland, so yes, you have right wing nuts with guns and explosives in the City just like you have leftist pinko commies in the Countryside.
Nutters that would do exactly that tend to not live in cities.
Source?
Because one of the other nutter families I know of that I spoke of earlier lives in a residential district basically identical in population density to the ones the cops had the shootout in.
Grey Templar wrote: And I don't think they'd go actively looking for trouble but would rather sit in their house fortress and wait for the cops to come to them.
That's exactly what they did. Police didn't find them hiding in a random neighborhood where the shootout began; they tracked them to their house, and that's where the shootout and impromptu pipebombs explosions occurred. It wasn't until after this and after the younger suspect fled that the carjacking (And surviving victim of said carjacking, let's not forget) and chase occurred.
There's every bit of evidence right now that they appear to have had a shootout and subsequent Die Hard-worthy chase scene afterwards. However, currently the direct evidence linking them to the Marathon bombings right now was:
1) Their presence at one of if not the largest public events in Boston, if not the entire state of Massachusetts.
2) The testimony of a drugged-out-of-his-mind double-amputee victim
3) The presence of a piece of common cookware such as found in doubtless thousands of other homes and used in the bombing present in his home.
Other than that, there are no direct connections I've seen or heard evidence for connecting them to the bombings at the Marathon itself. Everything else of their actionswith the police points to dime-a-dozen survivalist whackjob.
No, from reading your posts it seems as though your point has been to more to post conspiracy theories rather than keep an objective mind to the facts.
Well, one, how do you know they were ready made and not, say, produced after seeing their faces all over the news? Two, it's always best to confirm a target with your own eyes before pushing the plunger. I recommend you hold the bomb tight in your hand when you do it.
You clearly missed the joke at the end, I thought that the gave it away
Time frame wise is it reasonable to say that they had enough time to make multiple explosive devices (assuming that they had all the materials to hand and the pipes at the right length etc.) as well as having the technical expertise to make them in a hurry, or is it more likely that they had these devices waiting? After all it was your claim that the suspects were panicked and not thinking clearly enough to consider surrender, and now you're saying that they had the foresight to build bombs instead.
BaronIveagh wrote: Yes, but in this case guilty people (at least ones with brain one) would have skipped town long before they were identified. They most definitely would have prepared a vehicle or means of escape in advance as well, rather than resort to a carjacking and stealing from the guy's ATM, which screams 'impromptu' to me. That and the fact they let him go. I'd have shot him to prevent him from running to call the police and report the vehicle stolen, buying me some time.
No, from reading your posts it seems as though your point has been to more to post conspiracy theories rather than keep an objective mind to the facts.
Please site one conspiracy theory I've posted. Other than my suggestion that Putin was morally capable of ordering such an act if he thought he had something to gain.
Time frame wise is it reasonable to say that they had enough time to make multiple explosive devices (assuming that they had all the materials to hand and the pipes at the right length etc.) as well as having the technical expertise to make them in a hurry, or is it more likely that they had these devices waiting? After all it was your claim that the suspects were panicked and not thinking clearly enough to consider surrender, and now you're saying that they had the foresight to build bombs instead.
Since I don't know how big they were, or what quantity of explosive they contained, or how many were expended, I can't say for sure, but it sounds like about 20 min work, a little longer if they screwed up the first few. As I pointed out to Fraz, you can buy ten pounds of explosives legally, in a lot of places, over the counter. Wal Mart carries them around here.
True, but in this case the 'impromptu' part screams 'amateur'. If you put thought into an attack, and it's not a suicide attack, then most people would put the same amount of thought into their exit strategy, because even if you're going to carry out more attacks, you need to have a plan to get away from the initial attack and you have to assume that you will be ID'd. If these are our guys, they put near zero thought into even evading capture long enough to set up their next attack.
Exit strategies tend to be what most criminals neglect, even so called professionals can have sub-par get away plans. That's for all crimes and terrorism is little different in that regard. Its not unreasonable to expect them to not have a good getaway plan even if they were planning on a long lasting campaign of terror.
Just wanted to say it was touching to see all the support for Boston at the London marathon today. Lots of Boston finishers shirts, and 37,000 black ribbons.
Glad to know the marathon community is not one to be cowed by terrorists.
Grey Templar wrote: Exit strategies tend to be what most criminals neglect, even so called professionals can have sub-par get away plans. That's for all crimes and terrorism is little different in that regard. Its not unreasonable to expect them to not have a good getaway plan even if they were planning on a long lasting campaign of terror.
Eh. I can't argue that some people don't have sub par exit plans, but these guys had apparently none at all. For being the worst domestic bombing since 9/11, it's the sort of quality one would expect from two drunks with an afternoon off to put together a bomb plot and build the devices.
Grey Templar wrote: Exit strategies tend to be what most criminals neglect, even so called professionals can have sub-par get away plans. That's for all crimes and terrorism is little different in that regard. Its not unreasonable to expect them to not have a good getaway plan even if they were planning on a long lasting campaign of terror.
Eh. I can't argue that some people don't have sub par exit plans, but these guys had apparently none at all. For being the worst domestic bombing since 9/11, it's the sort of quality one would expect from two drunks with an afternoon off to put together a bomb plot and build the devices.
Well considering the FBI and CIA are saying that these guys had sophisticated training, and support, and have since made several arrests of suspected members of their cell, I'd say your guesstimations on all of this are a bit off.
Grey Templar wrote: Exit strategies tend to be what most criminals neglect, even so called professionals can have sub-par get away plans. That's for all crimes and terrorism is little different in that regard. Its not unreasonable to expect them to not have a good getaway plan even if they were planning on a long lasting campaign of terror.
Eh. I can't argue that some people don't have sub par exit plans, but these guys had apparently none at all. For being the worst domestic bombing since 9/11, it's the sort of quality one would expect from two drunks with an afternoon off to put together a bomb plot and build the devices.
Well considering the FBI and CIA are saying that these guys had sophisticated training, and support, and have since made several arrests of suspected members of their cell, I'd say your guesstimations on all of this are a bit off.
Which makes it even more strange that they had no cohesive exit strategy. If they hadn't planned on escaping at all, why did they opt for bombs they could fire off and survive, instead of using suicide vests or remaining near their bombs?
Its also possible they weren't prepared to get identified so quickly and were unable to get away. Of course this isn't consistent with their bragging to the carjacking victim.
My guess is that they were just a couple of small timer terrorists with delusions of grandeur that got some training somewhere but that training didn't include how to get away with it. So they really had no idea how to actually get away with it, and so they got caught.
Maybe their plan was exactly how it turned out? Wait until they were ID'd and go out in a blaze of glory? The folks who do this type of stuff aren't generally concerned with "exit strategies".
Especially if they have martyrdom thing going on, going down in a blaze of glory might be their thing As much as some bloodthirsty people are wishing the one arrested was shot, and now want him tortured, executed or whatever, that might be counterproductive.
There's plenty of ways to make him suffer without making a martyr out of him. Send him prison, either solitary or the tender mercies of the other inmates.
Bury him in the prison system, let him rot. Either way, its not going to be the death of glory he wants.
Not even the Death Penalty would be glorious. It'd be 20+ years of rotting on death row before finally getting the needle the way our system works, then he'd just get a day of coverage and then we'd forget about him. just another crazy in the dustbin of history.
Grey Templar wrote: Its also possible they weren't prepared to get identified so quickly and were unable to get away. Of course this isn't consistent with their bragging to the carjacking victim.
My guess is that they were just a couple of small timer terrorists with delusions of grandeur that got some training somewhere but that training didn't include how to get away with it. So they really had no idea how to actually get away with it, and so they got caught.
If there were other attacks planned as investigators believe could be a possibility, then these two morons were likely not thinking about escaping anytime soon.
Of corse, anyone with two brain cells to rub together would realise that bombing a huge event like the Boston Marathon would lead to every single resource at the Fed's disposal being used to track down the culprits ASAP!
Between how many analyists and how many thousands of hours of video survielance AND private cellphone/video recording device & photos that the public handed into investigators, it was stupidity at it's finest to think they weren't going to be caught on at least a half dozen plus recordings.
Also, we have no idea just how much physical evidence has actually been collected and processed by FBI, ATF & Boston forensic teams. While a few photos of some of the bomb fragments and the suspect photos were released, the investigative team could very likely have other things like extended video footage showing the boys planting their bags at the confirmed detonation sites, fingerprints, internet findings linking them to how-to bomb-making, etc... and who knows what else that they simply won't release to the press in order to protect vital evidance for use at trial.
On a related note, it now appears that the Fed's won't be questioning the younger brother anytime soon, since he apparently has a serious throat injury which is preventing him from physically speaking. (damnit!)
Well considering the FBI and CIA are saying that these guys had sophisticated training, and support, and have since made several arrests of suspected members of their cell, I'd say your guesstimations on all of this are a bit off.
From what I've read, everyone they have brought in so far, they released. The older brother's trip to Dagestan is filled with a lot of 'we thinks' and 'possibles' because they have no idea.
Though if you have a link to new information, feel free to post it.
The only one I can think of that might have possible military training was the older brother who was 26. Which seems about right for some sort of BASIC training in the area where their from before they were granted refugee status to the US. I'm curious though where they recieve the info on how they made their "Frags" which were pretty effective on the vehicle chase.
As for the "date" of the attack being it coincided wit the Battle of Lexington and the "Shot heard around the world" bit. I highly doubt that the attack was planned around that. I highly doubt most americans remember the date of the start of the Revolution. Two idioits knew the date of the Marathon and how many people were going to be there because they lived in the area.
As for DeNazt'ing. Google "List denaturralized former citizens of the United States" Its a DoJ run list.
I'm bit happy we're going down a different chain of thought. I was tired of reading the "Martial Law" comments. Granted a few of us have seen what "Martial Law" is when its in effect.
National Guard troops fall under the State they're from. The Blackhawks were from a National Guard unit even though they were funded for the state from the Federal gov't. The Federal Gov't provides the equipment and the training but its the state responsibility to maintain the equipment using state funds.
As for the escape route the two idioits failed to do. I strongly believed they were thinking they would not have been caught due to the amount of people that were in the area. That tells you off the bat how many people were looking at everything that was pouring in from cell phones pics and vids, to video camera in the area, and the news team that were there for the story.
As for DeNazt'ing. Google "List denaturralized former citizens of the United States" Its a DoJ run list.
It should be noted how few of those are for terrorism. (and how many were voluntary or part of plea deals to avoid deportation for war crimes) And, I'll be blunt, should probably be a step not taken as it would only pour fuel on the fire for people screaming 'conspiracy'.
This needs to be done in the open. I'm tired of hearing how putting terrorists in prisons in the US would be too risky for the public, but we can keep serial killers and mass murderers who like the taste of human flesh without issue.
Jihadin wrote: As for DeNazt'ing. Google "List denaturralized former citizens of the United States" Its a DoJ run list.
You're right - I stand corrected. While we did establish in one of the Anwar threads a way back that it's nearly impossible to remove citizenship from an unwilling citizen, it looks like it's a lot more flexible for a naturalized citizen. I learned something fascinating today.
A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn't have gun permits.
Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.
He says it's unclear whether either ever applied and the applications aren't considered public records.
But he says the 19-year-old Dzhokhar (joh-KHAR') would have been denied a permit because of his age. Only people 21 or older are allowed gun licenses in Massachusetts.
The suspects were also accused of hijacking a Mercedes on Thursday night.
Haas says the pair didn't release the driver, but he escaped when he was left alone while the two men entered a convenience store.
A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn't have gun permits.
Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev (tsahr-NEYE'-ehv) nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.
He says it's unclear whether either ever applied and the applications aren't considered public records.
But he says the 19-year-old Dzhokhar (joh-KHAR') would have been denied a permit because of his age. Only people 21 or older are allowed gun licenses in Massachusetts.
The suspects were also accused of hijacking a Mercedes on Thursday night.
Haas says the pair didn't release the driver, but he escaped when he was left alone while the two men entered a convenience store.
So wait... you mean to tell me that the Mass. gun controls didn't stop these brothers? Well... dip me in chocolate and color me shocked!
Imagine that: When a bunch of surrounding states have varying degrees of lax gun laws, people in stricter gun control states can still get them! It's almost as if a nation-wide set of restrictions would be more effective!
Unfortunately, now that the fervent hope that this was someone left-wing nutbags could link to the Tea Party or the KKK or Ronald Reagan has died, I suspect they're going to take center stage at some of the screechier outlets.
Unfortunately, now that the fervent hope that this was someone left-wing nutbags could link to the Tea Party or the KKK or Ronald Reagan has died, I suspect they're going to take center stage at some of the screechier outlets.
You know who else was crossing their fingers really hard and wishing on a star?
It wasn't just the people going "please let it be one of them..."
There were also plenty on the other side of the political spectrum wishing really hard "please, don't let it be one of ours." There is a reason the right kept quiet.
Unfortunately, now that the fervent hope that this was someone left-wing nutbags could link to the Tea Party or the KKK or Ronald Reagan has died, I suspect they're going to take center stage at some of the screechier outlets.
You know who else was crossing their fingers really hard and wishing on a star?
It wasn't just the people going "please let it be one of them..."
There were also plenty on the other side of the political spectrum wishing really hard "please, don't let it be one of ours." There is a reason the right kept quiet.
Honestly... do you really believe that?
That one person, or a group of people can damn a ideology like the right? or the left? or the socialist? or the Ever-Love'n-Dachshund?
The true simple matter is that there are donkey-caves who will do some fething heinous things because they are reprehensible donkey-caves... using whatever flimsy justification to support their endeavors.
You know who else was crossing their fingers really hard and wishing on a star?
It wasn't just the people going "please let it be one of them..."
There were also plenty on the other side of the political spectrum wishing really hard "please, don't let it be one of ours." There is a reason the right kept quiet.
I believe we've made that point on each of the last six or seven pages of the thread so far.
Unfortunately, now that the fervent hope that this was someone left-wing nutbags could link to the Tea Party or the KKK or Ronald Reagan has died, I suspect they're going to take center stage at some of the screechier outlets.
You know who else was crossing their fingers really hard and wishing on a star?
It wasn't just the people going "please let it be one of them..."
There were also plenty on the other side of the political spectrum wishing really hard "please, don't let it be one of ours." There is a reason the right kept quiet.
Honestly... do you really believe that?
That one person, or a group of people can damn a ideology like the right? or the left? or the socialist? or the Ever-Love'n-Dachshund?
The true simple matter is that there are donkey-caves who will do some fething heinous things because they are reprehensible donkey-caves... using whatever flimsy justification to support their endeavors.
I don't believe that.
But people are pretending that the left was sitting around going "I hope it was a tea party nutjob" while pretending that the right was not worried about it being somebody crazy from their side of the political spectrum. They were worried, there was a reason they didn't do too much finger pointing because they didn't want to point it towards potential allies.
The right found themselves in a position that most Muslims in the USA are all to familiar with. Thinking "crap, I hope it wasn't one of us..."
You know who else was crossing their fingers really hard and wishing on a star?
It wasn't just the people going "please let it be one of them..."
There were also plenty on the other side of the political spectrum wishing really hard "please, don't let it be one of ours." There is a reason the right kept quiet.
I believe we've made that point on each of the last six or seven pages of the thread so far.
I am sorry, I was thinking that your post was implying that the left was stupid for thinking it might have been somebody on the right.
I am sorry, I was thinking that your post was implying that the left was stupid for thinking it might have been somebody on the right.
No, it was pretty clearly saying that the left is likely to be stupid and make this about their pet issue du jour now that their pet theory du jour didn't pan out.
And I didn't get any worry from the right. I did get a lot of, "This is clearly Muslims, feth immigration, guys," though. Anyone drawing conclusions - or hoping - about the identity of the bomber(s) was an idiot, left or right.
But people are pretending that the left was sitting around going "I hope it was a tea party nutjob" while pretending that the right was not worried about it being somebody crazy from their side of the political spectrum. They were worried, there was a reason they didn't do too much finger pointing because they didn't want to point it towards potential allies.
The right found themselves in a position that most Muslims in the USA are all to familiar with. Thinking "crap, I hope it wasn't one of us..."
Fair enough and yes I think that's a fair assessment.
I think because of the politically charged environment now... that it's putting each group (right, left, martians, whathaveyous) on a defensive that all these crazy accusations are being flinged.
It's really a sad state and really makes it difficult to have an honest discourse.
I am sorry, I was thinking that your post was implying that the left was stupid for thinking it might have been somebody on the right.
No, it was pretty clearly saying that the left is likely to be stupid and make this about their pet issue du jour now that their pet theory du jour didn't pan out.
And I didn't get any worry from the right. I did get a lot of, "This is clearly Muslims, feth immigration, guys," though. Anyone drawing conclusions - or hoping - about the identity of the bomber(s) was an idiot, left or right.
Unfortunately, now that the fervent hope that this was someone left-wing nutbags could link to the Tea Party or the KKK or Ronald Reagan has died, I suspect they're going to take center stage at some of the screechier outlets.
You know who else was crossing their fingers really hard and wishing on a star?
It wasn't just the people going "please let it be one of them..."
There were also plenty on the other side of the political spectrum wishing really hard "please, don't let it be one of ours." There is a reason the right kept quiet.
Honestly... do you really believe that?
That one person, or a group of people can damn a ideology like the right? or the left? or the socialist? or the Ever-Love'n-Dachshund?
The true simple matter is that there are donkey-caves who will do some fething heinous things because they are reprehensible donkey-caves... using whatever flimsy justification to support their endeavors.
Hey hey hey! No wiener dog has ever been implicated in a non cat targeted terrorist attack. They are walking bio bombs though.
Don't dodge the question, who was it who made the accusation, and are they reputable. I didn't ask what party they belonged to.
BaronIveagh wrote: Please site one conspiracy theory I've posted. Other than my suggestion that Putin was morally capable of ordering such an act if he thought he had something to gain.
You mean other than claiming that the suspect was going to be disappeared, placed before a military court, how the police "disappeared" evidence of a murder. You know, those things that I posted earlier from you. Then we have your Nazi Germany comparisons and posts about how a country doesn't become totalitarian overnight.
BaronIveagh wrote: Since I don't know how big they were, or what quantity of explosive they contained, or how many were expended, I can't say for sure, but it sounds like about 20 min work, a little longer if they screwed up the first few. As I pointed out to Fraz, you can buy ten pounds of explosives legally, in a lot of places, over the counter. Wal Mart carries them around here.
So, once again they are rational enough to work with explosives, but not rational enough to think about surrender..... Where is "around here" btw, because unless its Boston it could very well be a moot point.
BaronIveagh wrote: True, but in this case the 'impromptu' part screams 'amateur'. If you put thought into an attack, and it's not a suicide attack, then most people would put the same amount of thought into their exit strategy, because even if you're going to carry out more attacks, you need to have a plan to get away from the initial attack and you have to assume that you will be ID'd. If these are our guys, they put near zero thought into even evading capture long enough to set up their next attack.
What part of their alleged acts are you seeing as impromptu?
Everything they have done looks amateur, so I'm not surprised that two people with little to no experience and training got so caught up in the bomb part of the plan that they had blinkers on for everything else, including an escape
It remains to be seen what their end game was, and if more attacks were planned. Once the authorities know more I'm sure the blanks will be filled in. But then again you don't trust the FBI or the police so I'm not sure exactly what you expect when your own prejudices and sympathies lie with the suspect.
You mean other than claiming that the suspect was going to be disappeared, placed before a military court, how the police "disappeared" evidence of a murder. You know, those things that I posted earlier from you. Then we have your Nazi Germany comparisons and posts about how a country doesn't become totalitarian overnight.
And, again,
A) Several members of Congress are (still) pressuring the President to do exactly that.
B) They did 'disappear' evidence of a murder. Look up the shooting of Brad Horton. Trooper Sean Peirce of NYSP shot Horton six times in the back, supposedly while being dragged by an ATV (disproved by the ME). He was on the Police Band at the same time crowing about how he had shot Bucky. The recording conveniently vanished before he could go before a Grand Jury. (Exactly how he came to be being dragged by an ATV has never been explained, either).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucky_Phillips
C) Entirely factual and apt. And neither of which are 'tin foil' hat conspiracy stuff. Just because I compared the current trend of politicians saying 'let's do away with their rights in order to protect the public' (whoever 'they' might be) to the same trend in Nazi Germany does not make the comparison untrue, particularly when coupled with the 'it can't happen here' mentality that you seem to espouse. A lot of people scream that it's a slippery slope fallacy when you say that taking away one group or individual's rights threatens all groups and individuals rights. Because at that moment they're not rights, they're privileges. They also forget that it's not a fallacy when it's true.
"First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Catholic.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me." - Martin Niemöller
But then again you don't trust the FBI or the police so I'm not sure exactly what you expect when your own prejudices and sympathies lie with the suspect.
I expect to be presented with evidence before I assign guilt. I don't simply accept their word for it just because they're 'the police' and say he's guilty. After all, that's not how Due Process works. If insisting on a fair trial and Due Process for the accused before I say he's guilty means I have prejudices,then the United States is the most prejudiced country in the world, and have their prejudices enshrined in their upper most laws.
"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
I'm going to be honest with you here. We're just talking past each other. You seem content to remain in your entrenched position and see conspiracy, incompetence, malice and a slide towards a totalitarian state while identifying with the suspects in this case. So as it looks like we're at an impasse. We could both continue to butt heads knowing that we're unlikely to see eye to eye, but I'm going to suggest that we just respectfully agree to disagree before we spend much more time chasing our tails.
Thanks for posting that Baron. Couldn't agree more, and disappointed so many people are jumping to conclusions about guilt with so little corroborating evidence.
You mean other than 1. pics of them at the bombing shortly before it occurred. 2. an eye witness at the bombing identifying one as dropping the backpack that went off. 3. incriminating call and conversation with the person who's vehicle they hijacked (who managed to escape). 4. a running gun battle with the police where they used a grenade, pipe bomb, and tried to use a pressure cooker bomb. 5. Discovery of multiple IEDs at their residence?
Dude, if I am ever on trial I want you on the jury.
2. an eye witness at the bombing identifying one as dropping the backpack that went off.
Much more incriminating, but we'll see how it stands up in court. Remember that he did not positively ID them, he provided a description that the FBI matched to the older brother.
3. incriminating call and conversation with the person who's vehicle they hijacked (who managed to escape).
I've read too many conflicting accounts of this to say one way or another at this time. I'd seen reports that he escaped and reports that he was released. Again, we'll see what is said under oath rather than in the press.
Initially the press reported they found a single (non IED) pressure cooker at their house and an indeterminate amount of 'explosives' (which, until they say what type, I'll assume could be anything) . The IEDs that I read about were recovered from the stolen SUV, not the house.
Dude, if I am ever on trial I want you on the jury.
Particularly if you didn't do it but are getting smeared in the press. (not that I'm saying that the bombers did or did not do it, but that the press has been getting this wrong again and again from the word Go and we're basing everything in this discussion off their reporting.)
While I am the last person to trust the news organizations with the facts, even if they only report 30% of the truth this guy is in serious horse gak.
If he does walk he likely wouldn't survive a month from vigilante justice. Not even leaving the country would be completely safe. He'd basically have to run to AQ to be safe, at which point he officially becomes an enemy combatant.
I glossed over this in my last post, but I would like to reiterate something I said over a decade ago when the World Trade Center was still smoldering. I was in a class with Gary Hart of all people. Yes, that Gary Hart.
And the debate was about whether we can declare war on what is in essence a terrorist organization. I was in favor and I made many legalistic arguments, but you always make policy arguments after the legal arguments, especially at this school, and I made this point I am about to make now.
When you try to treat something that is best treated as war as a matter of criminal law, you inevitably warp the criminal law, too. After all, treating it as a matter of criminal law is less efficient, less effective.
And so the temptation is to stretch the law to be more efficient. For instance, right now we believe we have killed or captured all the men who left the bombs at the Boston Marathon. But are we sure we have gotten all the bombs? Are we sure we have all the co-conspirators? Well, obviously, we must find out, and if we read him those pesky Miranda rights, which tell him that he has a right to remain silent, then he just might shut up!
Indeed under the Miranda regime, once he says he wants a lawyer, all questioning must stop until they get him one. And then who knows how that lawyer might interfere. Plus, lawyers create their own problems, such as intelligence leaks. The Lynne Stewart case comes to mind.
So today we find out that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has not been Mirandized. Now of course the Miranda rights represent one of the more brazen creations of judicial activism. I mean the Supreme Court came up with a script the cops have to say when they arrest him. Where is this script written in the Constitution? It isn’t there. But on top of it, virtually all of it informs the defendant of rights he doesn’t actually have under the original constitution. For instance, you have a right against self-incrimination, but only as a witness. It says nothing about talking under questioning. And you have a right to an attorney, but not a right to a free one. That is a right they pulled out of their keisters on another day. So they pulled out of their keisters a right to be informed of two other rights that they previously pulled out of their keisters.
You want to know how radical this is? Prior to Miranda, telling a person they had a right to remain silent and anything they said could be used against you in trial would probably be considered unauthorized practice of law by the police. They could literally have gotten in trouble for saying it depending on how broadly state authorities interpreted the term “practice of law.” But because they didn’t say it to Ernesto Miranda, even though no court had previously required them to say it, Mr. Miranda got his get-out-of-jail free card.
But there are lots of people who think it is good policy. Maybe so, but they know this policy is built on a foundation of sand. It was something imposed upon the people by the courts, rather than something we agreed to and voted on. It is not even something that our hallowed founders passed down. It’s just something a bunch of old men in robes imposed on us because they thought it was a good idea.
The point is if you like Miranda, you know it is not robust. You know it’s sandy foundation would be in danger of eroding. And the War on Terror will apply a firehose to it.
So the FBI has got Dzhokhar Tsarnaev in the hospital. And the FBI says they are not mirandizing him that they are invoking the public safety exception.
The ACLU is horrified. From their website:
Every criminal defendant is entitled to be read Miranda rights. The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule. Additionally, every criminal defendant has a right to be brought before a judge and to have access to counsel. We must not waver from our tried-and-true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions.
The public safety exception comes from New York v. Quarles. In that case a woman claimed to have been raped by a man with a gun. She said when he left her, she saw him enter a market. The cops went in there, tracked him down and in the chase lost sight of him for a moment. When they found him and cuffed him, they saw he had an empty shoulder holster. The arresting officer asked him where the gun was, and the defendant indicated it was in some empty cartons where it was recovered. The question was whether his statement indicating where the gun was, and the gun itself would be admitted into evidence at trial. If Miranda applied ordinarily, it wouldn’t.
In that case, the Supreme Court recognized that the danger to public justified the exception. As the Court observed:
So long as the gun was concealed somewhere in the supermarket, with its actual whereabouts unknown, it obviously posed more than one danger to the public safety: an accomplice might make use of it, a customer or employee might later come upon it.
It is far from clear that the public safety exception would apply in this case. First, that was a pretty short period of time for the exception and the evidence that there was a danger was pretty solid. His alleged victim said he had a gun. He had an empty holster. It seems utterly reasonable to think there might have been a gun in it recently.
By comparison the public safety concern is real but less urgent in this case. There might be additional conspirators we don’t know about yet. There might even be additional bombs. But I doubt we can have any certainty about that. I mean I suppose if they found ten boxes that used to hold pressure cookers and they could only account for six of them, that would be similar to an “empty holster” situation, but otherwise it’s hard to imagine that the FBI will have good reason to believe there are more bombs or conspirators unless Dzhokhar tell them about them.
But there is reason to think that the courts might expand the exception. Examine this reasoning in Quarles:
Here, had Miranda warnings deterred Quarles from responding to Officer Kraft's question about the whereabouts of the gun, the cost would have been something more than merely the failure to obtain evidence useful in convicting Quarles. Officer Kraft needed an answer to his question not simply to make his case against Quarles but to insure that further danger to the public did not result from the concealment of the gun in a public area.
We conclude that the need for answers to questions in a situation posing a threat to the public safety outweighs the need for the prophylactic rule protecting the Fifth Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination.
In other words, if the only issue was conviction at trial, Miranda would apply. But given that there was this additional concern for public safety, Miranda does not apply. And thus you can see exactly how the Supreme Court might write an opinion further expanding Quarles to apply to this situation. It is explicit policy making. It is explicit balancing. And the temptation to give the officers more leeway may be overwhelming.
“Ah, so what?” you might say. And if you don’t like Miranda and other criminal rights then this outcome won’t bother you overly much. But the problem criminal rights advocates will have is that this precedent will be applied to all cases, not just to terrorism cases. As one justice wrote in a wholly different context:
The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes. All who observe the work of courts are familiar with what Judge Cardozo described as “the tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.”
So if you care about Miranda, the last thing you should want is for it to apply to men like Dzhokhar. Barack Obama will want a conviction. He will want to prove that criminal trials for terrorists can work. Nothing would undermine that goal more than if the defendant “lawyered up” right now so he or Holder almost certainly ordered the agents not to Mirandize him and maybe even deny him access to counsel. We can be reasonably sure these agents are not doing a thing without cabinet-level, if not Presidential, approval. So he is not getting his Miranda rights, and it is uncertain whether he will at any time in the future.
And who knows what other forms of duress might be applied. Threats to deport family members perhaps? Threats to place the defendant in a prison where his life would be in danger, or he would just be regularly violated? Who knows? The temptation will be to get results and due process be damned.
And then after they do whatever they did, they will go to the court and ask them not to throw out the evidence. And the courts will be tempted not to let this guy go. He (allegedly) killed four people and wounded dozens of others. He terrorized an entire city. So they will be tempted to rationalize the constitution or the case law to allow whatever the FBI did to be treated as legal, or at least not as a fatal impediment to the case.
And the precedent would be set, and applied next not to a terrorist but some guy merely charged with robbery.
So if you care about criminal rights, the answer is to treat him as an enemy combatant. American citizens can be treated as combatants. Ask Robert E. Lee or the thousands of Confederates held in POW camps without any trial. Treat him as an enemy combatant and interrogate him as the dishonorable combatant he is. You don’t want to waterboard him? Fine, but don’t give him a lawyer during the interrogation, either. Isolate him away from the criminal justice system and then the way he is treated sets no precedent for ordinary criminal law.
For if we keep this in the criminal justice system, it will be a cancer that will inevitably erode the rights affording to criminals. While I am highly critical of Miranda, there are criminal rights I do care about. And someday this process will endanger them, too.
@GT: Agreed. While I suspect the running-shootout-with-cops bit is likely accurate, the evidence directly tying them to the bombing itself (Their presence and the drugged-up "eyewitness" description) is fairly tenous imo at this point, and Baron has very well addressed the other points and why they are flimsy.
If I were a cop at this point, I would arrest them, but if I were a prosecuting attorney I wouldn't dare formally press charges at this point in time.
Oh, not pressing charges for that. It just seems (to me at l;east) that prosecutions tend to want to submit all the charges on an individual at once, rather than charge him now for the shootout and then charge him later for the bombings if the evidence is strong enough later.
I think the whole advising people of their so called Miranda rights is also little more than protocol, because anyone who's watched any sort of cop show/movie knows what your Miranda rights are.
And there is a difference between being informed of your right and still having it. You don't not have a right until you have been officially informed by a LEO that you have them.
A guy can lawyer up before he's been read his rights.
Now you could suspend someone's Miranda rights but that is different to not reading them to him.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
darkPrince010 wrote: Oh, not pressing charges for that. It just seems (to me at l;east) that prosecutions tend to want to submit all the charges on an individual at once, rather than charge him now for the shootout and then charge him later for the bombings if the evidence is strong enough later.
Depends, if they are still collecting evidence for one set of charges and have all they need for another they will file charges for one crime. If for nothing more than to keep the criminal in custody while they continue to gather evidence.
Its like having a murder suspect that you decide to arrest for drug charges or other outstanding warrants.
It actually makes more sense to get him charged for the shootout now. It buys time for the bombing investigation as the suspect is in custody and not going anywhere.
Of course everything is subject to the actual trial. However, this is not a coutroom and does not require a chain of custody or rules of evidence.
At worst they can ignore the bombing and go for murder based on the carjacking and subsequent running gun battle alone (commission of attempted murder with aggrevated factor; police office while in the commision of a felony). Plus charges for carjacking, kidnapping, improvised explosives, and of course, resisting arrest.
Even under your best scenario the surviving brother is a dead man walking.
darkPrince010 wrote: @GT: Agreed. While I suspect the running-shootout-with-cops bit is likely accurate, the evidence directly tying them to the bombing itself (Their presence and the drugged-up "eyewitness" description) is fairly tenous imo at this point, and Baron has very well addressed the other points and why they are flimsy.
If I were a cop at this point, I would arrest them, but if I were a prosecuting attorney I wouldn't dare formally press charges at this point in time.
The only evidence we the public know about is what little the Fed's have released to the media in an effort to apprehend these suspects.
Yes, we've seen a few photos of the suspects themselves. We've seen a couple shots of the bomb fragments.
We have not been told even a bare fraction of the total evidence that's been gathered because;
a) it's still incomplete/being tested for proper analysis because unlike "CSI seconds", this crap in reality takes weeks to get results on!
b) it would endanger the trial process if everything is leaked beforehand!
So for all we know, the FBI/ATF/Boston Forensic teams could very likely have fingerprints linking the boys, additional video showing them physically placing the backpacks at the confirmed detonation sites, possible DNA... Who knows! The point is, none of this is going to become public knowledge until it's revealed at trial!
I'm fairly sure the federal prosecuting team has not only a mountain of evidence to shift through, but is also much more aware of the likely guilt of this surviving bomber since they do have full access to everything we can't know.
Experiment 626 wrote: The only evidence we the public know about is what little the Fed's have released to the media in an effort to apprehend these suspects.
Yes, we've seen a few photos of the suspects themselves. We've seen a couple shots of the bomb fragments.
We have not been told even a bare fraction of the total evidence that's been gathered because;
a) it's still incomplete/being tested for proper analysis because unlike "CSI seconds", this crap in reality takes weeks to get results on!
b) it would endanger the trial process if everything is leaked beforehand!
So for all we know, the FBI/ATF/Boston Forensic teams could very likely have fingerprints linking the boys, additional video showing them physically placing the backpacks at the confirmed detonation sites, possible DNA... Who knows! The point is, none of this is going to become public knowledge until it's revealed at trial!
I'm fairly sure the federal prosecuting team has not only a mountain of evidence to shift through, but is also much more aware of the likely guilt of this surviving bomber since they do have full access to everything we can't know.
Yup. You don't reveal all your cards before you go to trial, and you don't want the defense lawyers to claim that its impossible to get a fair trial because the evidence was leaked ahead of time.
darkPrince010 wrote: @GT: Agreed. While I suspect the running-shootout-with-cops bit is likely accurate, the evidence directly tying them to the bombing itself (Their presence and the drugged-up "eyewitness" description) is fairly tenous imo at this point, and Baron has very well addressed the other points and why they are flimsy.
If I were a cop at this point, I would arrest them, but if I were a prosecuting attorney I wouldn't dare formally press charges at this point in time.
Its not tenuous once the the chain of evidence follows through and it will be presented properly in court.
Eye witness will identify him in court as being there and dropping the backpack.
Pictures will show backpack go boom. Pictures will corraborate he was there
Proper chain of custody will be established on the pictures.
supporting evidence in the form of the bomb making equipment and/or other bombs there of the same make and material will seal the deal with a kiss.
I don't think that the surviving bomber is going to be feeling too guilty about what he did. He reputedly went to a few parties with his friends in the days after the bombing.
darkPrince010 wrote: @GT: Agreed. While I suspect the running-shootout-with-cops bit is likely accurate, the evidence directly tying them to the bombing itself (Their presence and the drugged-up "eyewitness" description) is fairly tenous imo at this point, and Baron has very well addressed the other points and why they are flimsy.
If I were a cop at this point, I would arrest them, but if I were a prosecuting attorney I wouldn't dare formally press charges at this point in time.
The only evidence we the public know about is what little the Fed's have released to the media in an effort to apprehend these suspects.
Yes, we've seen a few photos of the suspects themselves. We've seen a couple shots of the bomb fragments.
We have not been told even a bare fraction of the total evidence that's been gathered because;
a) it's still incomplete/being tested for proper analysis because unlike "CSI seconds", this crap in reality takes weeks to get results on!
b) it would endanger the trial process if everything is leaked beforehand!
So for all we know, the FBI/ATF/Boston Forensic teams could very likely have fingerprints linking the boys, additional video showing them physically placing the backpacks at the confirmed detonation sites, possible DNA... Who knows! The point is, none of this is going to become public knowledge until it's revealed at trial!
I'm fairly sure the federal prosecuting team has not only a mountain of evidence to shift through, but is also much more aware of the likely guilt of this surviving bomber since they do have full access to everything we can't know.
Thats not correct. We have at least two eye witnesses, pictures from public locales, and scanner reports.
darkPrince010 wrote: @GT: Agreed. While I suspect the running-shootout-with-cops bit is likely accurate, the evidence directly tying them to the bombing itself (Their presence and the drugged-up "eyewitness" description) is fairly tenous imo at this point, and Baron has very well addressed the other points and why they are flimsy.
If I were a cop at this point, I would arrest them, but if I were a prosecuting attorney I wouldn't dare formally press charges at this point in time.
Its not tenuous once the the chain of evidence follows through and it will be presented properly in court.
Eye witness will identify him in court as being there and dropping the backpack.
Pictures will show backpack go boom. Pictures will corraborate he was there
Proper chain of custody will be established on the pictures.
supporting evidence in the form of the bomb making equipment and/or other bombs there of the same make and material will seal the deal with a kiss.
Except the witnesses we know about *didn't* see him with the package. They saw his brother.
The pictures (we know of) do place him at the scene.
If that' your idea of how justice works, I can point you to some former US armed services members who killed far more innocent civilians than this and were actually found guilty. The most they served was four years.
darkPrince010 wrote: @GT: Agreed. While I suspect the running-shootout-with-cops bit is likely accurate, the evidence directly tying them to the bombing itself (Their presence and the drugged-up "eyewitness" description) is fairly tenous imo at this point, and Baron has very well addressed the other points and why they are flimsy.
If I were a cop at this point, I would arrest them, but if I were a prosecuting attorney I wouldn't dare formally press charges at this point in time.
Its not tenuous once the the chain of evidence follows through and it will be presented properly in court. Eye witness will identify him in court as being there and dropping the backpack. Pictures will show backpack go boom. Pictures will corraborate he was there Proper chain of custody will be established on the pictures.
supporting evidence in the form of the bomb making equipment and/or other bombs there of the same make and material will seal the deal with a kiss.
Except the witnesses we know about *didn't* see him with the package. They saw his brother.
The pictures (we know of) do place him at the scene.
If that' your idea of how justice works, I can point you to some former US armed services members who killed far more innocent civilians than this and were actually found guilty. The most they served was four years.
Its a conspiracy and they were joint actors. If they peg one brother with the crime the other goes down too. EDIT: already ninjaed!
Additionally back to the easy one, there's no way out of that one. carjacking, and kidnapping are big boy felonies. shooting at the someone else while in furtherance of that is a two pronger and will get you capital murder in most jurisdictions. if the people you are shooting at are cops, thats a further extenuating circumstance raising the standard.
If it were Texas it would be fast tracked to needle time as there is massively clear evidence for the above. Kidnappee. evidence in the vehicle. gun battle with police (police) physical evidence of gun battle - spent casings, THINGS THAT WENT BOOM. etc. etc. You could try this puppy in an hour once the jury was picked.
Well....the younger brother almost opted out from a flashbang fragment to the back of the neck.....its not like some LEO were having serious thoughts of a mafia style hit.....which I doubt since its only one entry wound of some type....
I didn't see this posted yet so I thought I'd share. I know some of you distain Fox news but I think you'll survive this link because it isn't Hannity/Beck at the other end.
Yes, that person is TEACHING college students and likely injecting her personal beliefs into her classes as so many do. I know the nutjobs who taught at the community college I attended did. Anyway, Frazzled previously a summation that dovetails nicely into why the force used was completely appropriate.
Frazzled wrote: 1. pics of them at the bombing shortly before it occurred.
2. an eye witness at the bombing identifying one as dropping the backpack that went off.
3. incriminating call and conversation with the person who's vehicle they hijacked (who managed to escape).
4. a running gun battle with the police where they used a grenade, pipe bomb, and tried to use a pressure cooker bomb.
5. Discovery of multiple IEDs at their residence?
Dude, if I am ever on trial I want you on the jury.
On the topic of Miranda, there seems to be differing opinions here on Dakka. Whembly posted an interesting article:
I have a video that brings a salient point of view to the debate. Even if you disagree with his opinion, I think you'll appreciate the clarity and thoughtfulness in this video.
Well I thnk if I remmber correctly he was in a boat...the other...well...remember that one thread awhile back on LEO with fire discipline...you remember...15rounds and like only three hits....
He won't get a fair trial in federal court since some senators on both sides called him a enemy combatant.
The suspect is not going to be tried as enemy combatant... I'm okay with this...
But, he's now being charged with the federal "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?? Erm... wat? Did he have nukes or bio weapons??
TBone the wiener dog is on antibionics right now. As a result his normal Kiloton strength fart bombs have been elevated to 20 megaton wiener fart of mass destruction. Can clear a populated area in 12 seconds.
Grey Templar wrote: Being party to the crime is just as bad as actually committing the crime itself.
2 guys rob a house. One of them shoots and kills an occupant, the other just steals stuff. Both are guilty of murder.
True. (thought getting convictions on that can be tricky if one's a kid).
However, I can also say at this point that his defense can already make several good arguments.
That he cannot get a fair trial due to the media coverage of the event.
That he continued to be denied his rights after the apparent threat to public safety was over.
Edit:
Any explosive device can be a Weapon of Mass Destruction under the law.
No he wasn't but thats irrelevant as there were no searches involved. No fruit of a bad search to despoil.
You'll have to do a hell of lot better than that counselor.
The suspect is not going to be tried as enemy combatant... I'm okay with this...
But, he's now being charged with the federal "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?? Erm... wat? Did he have nukes or bio weapons??
TBone the wiener dog is on antibionics right now. As a result his normal Kiloton strength fart bombs have been elevated to 20 megaton wiener fart of mass destruction. Can clear a populated area in 12 seconds.
Um... woah... that's knarly:
So... are the Feds really saying that those bombs are considered "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?
The suspect is not going to be tried as enemy combatant... I'm okay with this...
But, he's now being charged with the federal "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?? Erm... wat? Did he have nukes or bio weapons??
TBone the wiener dog is on antibionics right now. As a result his normal Kiloton strength fart bombs have been elevated to 20 megaton wiener fart of mass destruction. Can clear a populated area in 12 seconds.
Um... woah... that's knarly:
So... are the Feds really saying that those bombs are considered "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?
Any type of explosive device is considered a WMD.
Its only politically that a WMD refers to nukes and bioweapons.
Grey Templar wrote: Being party to the crime is just as bad as actually committing the crime itself.
2 guys rob a house. One of them shoots and kills an occupant, the other just steals stuff. Both are guilty of murder.
True. (thought getting convictions on that can be tricky if one's a kid).
However, I can also say at this point that his defense can already make several good arguments.
That he cannot get a fair trial due to the media coverage of the event.
That he continued to be denied his rights after the apparent threat to public safety was over.
Edit:
Any explosive device can be a Weapon of Mass Destruction under the law.
We need a law saying that crimes of a certain high profile can't claim the trial is tainted. Otherwise some crimes could never go to court at all. Someone could sneak in a nuke and blow up New York and get away with it with that kind of claim.
For the purposes of US Criminal law concerning terrorism,[28] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[29]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[30]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[31]
any explosive or incendiary device, as defined in Title 18 USC, Section 921: bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, or other device with a charge of more than four ounces
any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
any weapon involving a disease organism
any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.
Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[32] pipe bombs,[33] shoe bombs,[34] cactus needles coated with botulin toxin,[35] etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.
The Washington Post reported on 30 March 2006: "Jurors asked the judge in the death penalty trial of Zacarias Moussaoui today to define the term 'weapons of mass destruction' and were told it includes airplanes used as missiles". Moussaoui was indicted and tried for the use of airplanes as WMD.
The suspect is not going to be tried as enemy combatant... I'm okay with this...
But, he's now being charged with the federal "Weapons of Mass Destruction"?? Erm... wat? Did he have nukes or bio weapons??
Good, I'm glad he's not being treated as an enemy combatant.
Concerning the weapons of mass destruction there is a difference between civilian and state definitions. I linked to it in the other locked thread, but I'll repeat it here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction
For the purposes of US Criminal law concerning terrorism,[28] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:
any destructive device defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[29]
any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors
any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector
any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[30]
The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[31]
any explosive or incendiary device, as defined in Title 18 USC, Section 921: bomb, grenade, rocket, missile, mine, or other device with a charge of more than four ounces any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
any weapon involving a disease organism
any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life
any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.
Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[32] pipe bombs,[33] shoe bombs,[34] cactus needles coated with botulin toxin,[35] etc. have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.
**edit**
Bah!! Ninja'd while working on my Honey-Do list
any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
whembly wrote: Yeah... I was stuck on the big ones with respect to WMDs...
(so, does that mean Boosh was right with Iraq? waves, ducks and RUNS! )
Iraq's WMDs would likely have fallen under the military, not civilian, definition -
For the general purposes of national defense,[23] US Code[24] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:
any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[25]
For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[26] US Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons
whembly wrote: Yeah... I was stuck on the big ones with respect to WMDs...
(so, does that mean Boosh was right with Iraq? waves, ducks and RUNS! )
Iraq's WMDs would likely have fallen under the military, not civilian, definition -
For the general purposes of national defense,[23] US Code[24] defines a weapon of mass destruction as:
any weapon or device that is intended, or has the capability, to cause death or serious bodily injury to a significant number of people through the release, dissemination, or impact of:
toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors
a disease organism
radiation or radioactivity[25]
For the purposes of the prevention of weapons proliferation,[26] US Code defines weapons of mass destruction as "chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons, and chemical, biological, and nuclear materials used in the manufacture of such weapons
Bah... I feel like this is another one of those "that depends on what the definition of "is" is... "
BaronIveagh wrote: Ok, we have one count of using a WMD and one count of malicious destruction of property resulting in death.
No word yet if Mass will let this be DoJ's baby or file their own charges.
BTW: Civil War reenactments look out! You're violating WMD every time one of those fx rounds fire.
Well, the DoJ will probably take precedence. This wasn't just an attack on Boston, heck if some of the international runners had been injured/killed we could have had an international trial.
And Civil War reenactments won't count as they aren't "intended" to harm anyone.
Canadian police and intelligence agencies will announce later today they have thwarted a plot to carry out a major terrorist attack, arresting two suspects in Montreal and Toronto, CBC News has learned.
Highly placed sources tell CBC News the alleged plotters have been under surveillance for more than a year in Quebec and southern Ontario.
The two men are expected to appear in court tomorrow.
Police have made a number of arrests in southern Ontario and Quebec following a joint operation between Canadian and U.S. authorities. (CBC)
The investigation was part of a cross-border operation involving Canadian law enforcement agencies, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The arrests Monday morning were co-ordinated and executed by a special joint task force of RCMP and CSIS anti-terrorism units, combined with provincial and municipal police forces in Ontario and Quebec.
The RCMP are expected to hold a press conference Monday afternoon to announce the arrests and provide details of the alleged plot, and give an overview of the extensive police and intelligence operation.
Law enforcement officials say the terror suspects arrested today have no connection to the two brothers accused of last week's Boston Marathon bombings.
They also say there is no tie to the former London, Ont., high school friends who joined al-Qaeda and died earlier this year while helping to stage a bloody attack on an Algerian gas refinery.
Alleged plot recalls Toronto 18 case
Sources say the alleged plot disrupted by Monday's arrests was potentially more dangerous than the bombings and hostage-takings planned by the so-called Toronto 18.
That plot was broken up in the summer of 2006, when police arrested 18 people in a massive anti-terrorism sweep in southern Ontario.
Eleven of the 18 were subsequently convicted of aiding the group in various plots, ranging from blowing up the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill and the Toronto Stock Exchange with trucks laden with explosives to beheading the prime minister and other politicians.
The group never got a chance to execute any of its plans before being arrested when one of its members took delivery of what they thought were three tonnes of explosive fertilizer to be used in truck bombs. Undercover agents had replaced the shipment with harmless chemicals.
Four are serving sentences of 18 years to life in prison, while the other seven received terms ranging from 30 months to just over seven years.
More recently, three Canadian citizens were arrested in August, 2010 — two Ottawa men and a London, Ont. doctor — and charged with knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity.
One of them, Hiva Alizadeh, was also charged with possession of more than 50 circuit boards allegedly to be used as remote detonators for bombs.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when have Civil War reenactments actually fired projectiles?
I need to start going again.
East Coast or West Coast? I got hit by one a few years ago during Gettysburg. Both sides were using them during Pickett's Charge.(despite rules about that sort of thing).
If you're looking for actual violence, join the Irish Brigade or any of the Texas infantry units. They're not too shy about actual hand to hand.
Grey Templar wrote: Since when have Civil War reenactments actually fired projectiles?
I need to start going again.
East Coast or West Coast? I got hit by one a few years ago during Gettysburg. Both sides were using them during Pickett's Charge.(despite rules about that sort of thing).
If you're looking for actual violence, join the Irish Brigade or any of the Texas infantry units. They're not too shy about actual hand to hand.
West Coast. Haven't been to any on the East Coast.
Jihadin wrote: Imagine the mayhem if he walks because his Miranda Rights wasn't read to him in time..............
Depends if the defense can mount an argument that his rights continued to be denied *after* the threat to public safety was over. If so...
Not so. If the prosecution ONLY relied on evidence obtained from interrogation without rights notification they may have some problems (but even then could perhaps overcome it). If they use any forensic evidence, witnesses, or other evidence that did not rely on his interrogation they will not have a problem.
motyak wrote: So did that beck fellowvreveal anything? Monday was the day right? Just curious.
Eh... I had to check... this is what he's saying:
Background points:
-A Saudi national originally identified as a “person of interest” in the Boston Marathon bombing was set to be deported under section 212 3B — “Security and related grounds” — “Terrorist activities” after the bombing
-As the story gained traction, TheBlaze’s Chief Content Officer Joel Cheatwood received word that the government may not deport the Saudi national, originally identified as Abdul Rahman Ali Alharbi
-Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano refused to answer questions on the subject when confronted by Rep. Jeff Duncan (R-SC) on Capitol Hill.
-An ICE official said a different Saudi national is in custody, but is “in no way” connected to the bombings.
-A congressional source, however, says that the file on Alharbi was created, that he was “linked” in some way to the Boston bombings (though it is unclear how), and that documents showing all this have been sent to Congress.
-Key congressmen of the Committee on Homeland Security request a classified briefing with Napolitano
-Fox News’ Todd Starnes reports that Alharbi was allegedly flagged on a terrorist watch list and granted a student visa without being properly vetted. Sources close to the investigation also told him the Saudi is still set for deportation.
-New information provided to TheBlaze reveals Alharbi’s file was altered early Wednesday evening to disassociate him from the initial charges
-Sources say the Saudi’s student visa specifically allows him to go to school in Findlay, Ohio, though he appears to have an apartment in Boston, Massachusetts
-Sources tell us this will most likely now be kicked from the DHS to the DOJ and labeled an ongoing investigation that can no longer be discussed.
This have the markings of the "Saudis aren't our fwiends" hysteria...
Let's wait until this is coraborated or denied by other sources...
im a little surprised with how few charges the feds filled but I guess you cant include things like the car jacking or shooting at locals in the federal charges? I assume being charges with the use of a WMD carries with it a pretty stiff penalty
Canadian police and intelligence agencies will announce later today they have thwarted a plot to carry out a major terrorist attack, arresting two suspects in Montreal and Toronto, CBC News has learned.
Highly placed sources tell CBC News the alleged plotters have been under surveillance for more than a year in Quebec and southern Ontario.
The two men are expected to appear in court tomorrow.
Police have made a number of arrests in southern Ontario and Quebec following a joint operation between Canadian and U.S. authorities. (CBC)
The investigation was part of a cross-border operation involving Canadian law enforcement agencies, the FBI and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
The arrests Monday morning were co-ordinated and executed by a special joint task force of RCMP and CSIS anti-terrorism units, combined with provincial and municipal police forces in Ontario and Quebec.
The RCMP are expected to hold a press conference Monday afternoon to announce the arrests and provide details of the alleged plot, and give an overview of the extensive police and intelligence operation.
Law enforcement officials say the terror suspects arrested today have no connection to the two brothers accused of last week's Boston Marathon bombings.
They also say there is no tie to the former London, Ont., high school friends who joined al-Qaeda and died earlier this year while helping to stage a bloody attack on an Algerian gas refinery.
Alleged plot recalls Toronto 18 case
Sources say the alleged plot disrupted by Monday's arrests was potentially more dangerous than the bombings and hostage-takings planned by the so-called Toronto 18.
That plot was broken up in the summer of 2006, when police arrested 18 people in a massive anti-terrorism sweep in southern Ontario.
Eleven of the 18 were subsequently convicted of aiding the group in various plots, ranging from blowing up the Peace Tower on Parliament Hill and the Toronto Stock Exchange with trucks laden with explosives to beheading the prime minister and other politicians.
The group never got a chance to execute any of its plans before being arrested when one of its members took delivery of what they thought were three tonnes of explosive fertilizer to be used in truck bombs. Undercover agents had replaced the shipment with harmless chemicals.
Four are serving sentences of 18 years to life in prison, while the other seven received terms ranging from 30 months to just over seven years.
More recently, three Canadian citizens were arrested in August, 2010 — two Ottawa men and a London, Ont. doctor — and charged with knowingly facilitating a terrorist activity.
One of them, Hiva Alizadeh, was also charged with possession of more than 50 circuit boards allegedly to be used as remote detonators for bombs.
Apparently we tend to attract the world's biggest failerrorists who just haven't gotten beyond the "you need to NOT! come under the near-immediate attention of police/CSIS" part yet...
ironicsilence wrote: im a little surprised with how few charges the feds filled but I guess you cant include things like the car jacking or shooting at locals in the federal charges? I assume being charges with the use of a WMD carries with it a pretty stiff penalty
A WMD charge carries the death penalty. Don't get caught with a bomb.
Jihadin wrote: Frazz...your saying that Tbone can play and win with no mercy in Fart Games eh?
You know it! Either while barking at a wall (yes witnessed even by friends, you're not a Level XXIV donkey-cave until you bark at walls to get out of your way) or while on your lap making that squeaky toy pay!)
To the topic I could see bombs meeting the definition of WMD. I imagine the state charges are more plain jane.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dreadclaw69 wrote: Out of interest can a trial be conducted in the US with just a judge and no jury for terrorist trials?
Yes. However, in a criminal case the defendant has the option for a jury trial under the Constitution via one of those amendments no one remembers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BaronIveagh wrote: Ok, we have one count of using a WMD and one count of malicious destruction of property resulting in death.
No word yet if Mass will let this be DoJ's baby or file their own charges.
BTW: Civil War reenactments look out! You're violating WMD every time one of those fx rounds fire.
There's nothing against him being charged on both federal and state charges.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jihadin wrote: Imagine the mayhem if he walks because his Miranda Rights wasn't read to him in time..............
He won't absent another factor he'll be read his M rights (if not already) once the public danger exemption falls away. Again, that won't save him at all unless his comments are used against him or lead to evidence. In this instance, its almost utterly irrelevant. When you have a running BOMB battle with police there are lots of witnesses.
He's roasty toasty unless he starts talking, er writing. Put him in general population. Lets see what the white Aryan guys do to him...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Grey Templar wrote: Since when have Civil War reenactments actually fired projectiles?
Now lets get him in front of a judge.
