Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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

 Ouze wrote:

 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.

 Sigvatr wrote:
. Killing a serious criminal is not a crime, but a good decision.

obvious troll is obvious

I you have the capacity to just kill some one regardless of who they are, then you are a serious criminal

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Slarg232 wrote:
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/20/17823265-we-got-him-boston-bombing-suspect-captured-alive?lite

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.

 Sigvatr wrote:

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.

 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?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 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?

a prostitute might have a better chance at "getting him off"

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....

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

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.

 ironicsilence wrote:

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:

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.

Are you under the impression that the two are mutually exclusive, or that the US public has been, en masse, denied their rights?

 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)

 ironicsilence wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

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.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 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.

ironicsilence wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

 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.

 ironicsilence wrote:
this guy will never get parole, at minimum he is looking at multiple life sentences with zero chance of parole

Depending on what the FBI forensics and their EOD experts find he could potentially be changed with possession of weapon(s) of mass destruction - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction#Criminal_.28Civilian.29

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?

 djones520 wrote:
They got him in custody!

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!

 Seaward wrote:

 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;

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 kronk wrote:

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.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/04/no-miranda-rights-for-now-for-bombing-suspect-90362.html?hp=f1

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.

Overall, just so glad they were able to catch him without having to kill him

Its only going to be justice this way if they put him in the absolute worst hellhole of a prison they have.

Seriously laughing at some of the posts here.

you have the capacity to just kill some one regardless of who they are, then you are a serious criminal

I was following orders and they fell under RoE

 Jihadin wrote:
Seriously laughing t some of the posts here.

There has been some bone-headed posts in here...

 Jihadin wrote:
Seriously laughing at some of the posts here.

you have the capacity to just kill some one regardless of who they are, then you are a serious criminal

I was following orders and they fell under RoE

I wasn't meaning soldiers (Who are trained for that sort of thing) but civilians just popping someone on the street

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Seriously laughing at some of the posts here.

you have the capacity to just kill some one regardless of who they are, then you are a serious criminal

I was following orders and they fell under RoE

I wasn't meaning soldiers (Who are trained for that sort of thing) but civilians just popping someone on the street

Oh good, being trained to kill and in the job description makes it not-murder. Glad that got cleared up.

 darkPrince010 wrote:

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Seriously laughing at some of the posts here.

you have the capacity to just kill some one regardless of who they are, then you are a serious criminal

I was following orders and they fell under RoE

I wasn't meaning soldiers (Who are trained for that sort of thing) but civilians just popping someone on the street

Oh good, being trained to kill and in the job description makes it not-murder. Glad that got cleared up.

War isn't murder is what he meant I'm sure. Its war.

Murder (At least to me) implies it's more cold-blooded outside of an active warzone

War is generally trained killers fighting each other