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.

 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?

 Seaward wrote:

 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

Will Tsarnaev get a fair trial?

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:

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.
...

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.

Good point, Seaward. (and I don't often think that )

If you change how things work because of something like this, and limit people's freedoms and inconvenience them, then I think the terrorists win.

In the UK, I have to say I respect the "Keep Calm and Carry On" attitude.

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

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".

 Goliath wrote:

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:

http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/20/tsarnaev-and-miranda-rights/

From that link:

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'.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

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?".

I am not 100% convinced.

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?

 Seaward wrote:

 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's a pretty good guess 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.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 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.

 Seaward wrote:

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.

 Ouze wrote:

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's a pretty good guess 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.

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.

 CptJake wrote:

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.

 Seaward wrote:

 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.