Boston Bombings (political talk)

[Gmash]

So, they've decided to take away the rights of an American citizen by not
reading him his Miranda rights or allowing him access to an attorney. Not only is
this wrong for obvious reasons, but is unnecessary and an unneeded distraction
from the horrific crimes that have been committed. This would have been wrong
under Bush, and its wrong now. Hopefully the Obama administration will come
to its senses and drop the "enemy combatant" nonsense. The federal courts can
convict this idiot with no problem. If this is allowed to stand it sets a terrible
precedent for those of us who care about our rights.

*posted this in the wrong place, so I moved it over here

 

[chrlswltrs]

Whether he was read his rights or even has them isn't really important at this point, the results will be the same. My biggest problem with how he was caught is that martial law was declared (just without using the words), then he was still caught by a citizen noticing him, not being found by all the illegal searches door to door. Where is the outrage over martial law? Police forced their way into every house to search. All this was over 1 person. Imagine what they could get away with if there had been 5 suspects they were looking for, especially with how easily they got away with it this time!!

After the shootout where #1 was killed how did #2 even get away? There are hundreds of officers from different agencies, road blocks, helecopters, etc and he just gets away??? Sounds to me like they let him to see if they could get away with declaring martial law, and they did.

Another issue: A Saudi national was instantly a person of interest. Then Obama had an unscheduled emergeny meeting with a Saudi ambassador, and then all of a sudden that person of interest is no longer a person of intrest and scheduled for immediate deportation for national security reasons.

Another issue: There was national guard, SWAT, DHS, bomb units, etc. already there before the bombing for a "bomb drill." Convenient....

When the FBI released the pictures they said they needed help identifying the suspects. Obviosly that has proven to be a lie since they had already interviewed at least one of them.

They have shown portions of video and stills of the suspects carrying the backpacks (which honestly don't look like they contain bombs, they are not nearly heavy enough) and they say they have video showing them setting the bags down, but they have yet to show that video??

At a minimum the FBI knew this was going to happen and allowed it to happen, I hope that is as far as it goes. I have my doubts though...

 

[Gmash]

CNN is reporting that now the suspect will receive a public defender, so that is an improvement, but it seems to make the decision not to Mirandize him even more pointless. Surely any lawyer will advise him not to speak to authorities. Anybody who watches tv would know that anyway. What am I missing here?

 

[chrlswltrs]

CNN is reporting that now the suspect will receive a public defender, so that is an improvement, but it seems to make the decision not to Mirandize him even more pointless. Surely any lawyer will advise him not to speak to authorities. Anybody who watches tv would know that anyway. What am I missing here?

Pretty convenient for the FBI he can't speak due to a throat/neck injury.

 

[Gmash]

I agree with you about the warrantless searches, but I'm not buying all of the conspiracy stuff any more than I did after 9/11. If it was that much of a conspiracy they would have just killed the second bomber and been done with it. Would have saved them a lot of hassle.

 

[chrlswltrs]

I agree with you about the warrantless searches, but I'm not buying all of the conspiracy stuff any more than I did after 9/11. If it was that much of a conspiracy they would have just killed the second bomber and been done with it. Would have saved them a lot of hassle.

There is no theory about the "drill," Saudi national, or #2 getting away from the shootout. All of that has been reported and confirmed by multiple sources on multiple news stations. Things just don't add up.

 

[ElasticNinja]

I hope he gets a fair trial and such, and there is a thorough report done investigating how this whole thing transpired.

Personally, I found the images of militarised police swarming through a deserted Boston rather disturbing. Likewise I find the celebrations now that this whole thing is over a bit odd. You don't start singing the national anthem after society has completely failed. I didn't see any of this stuff after Merah was killed in the shootout after all he had done.

 

[SiempreTuna]

So, they've decided to take away the rights of an American citizen by not reading him his Miranda rights or allowing him access to an attorney

I believe the policy/FBI (whoever it was) invoked a pre-existing public safety exemption which, although unusual, is actually completely legal and does not violate his rights per se. This exemption allows the police/FBI to question the suspect without advising him of his right to silence (etc).

The exemption is however, time limited and - somewhat ironically - the guy was shot in the throat and is unlikely to be able to speak (though apparently he has communicated via written notes) before it expires.

There are those who would like to declare him an enemy combatant and send him to Guantanamo however hopefully that won't happen.

not being found by all the illegal searches door to door

Were there illegal searches? Did the police forcibly search any property after an owner had specifically refused them permission?

After the shootout where #1 was killed how did #2 even get away? There are hundreds of officers from different agencies, road blocks, helecopters, etc and he just gets away??? Sounds to me like they let him to see if they could get away with declaring martial law, and they did.

That's an outlandish claim. First, it wasn't martial law as the army wasn't involved. Second, so far as I'm aware, the police didn't arrest anyone who chose to defy their advice. Advice which seems pretty reasonable when you bear in mind they were after a suspect who was armed with guns and bombs, had already killed 4 people and showed no compunction about killing others and that his escape would have been facilitated had there been crowds he could blend into.

If the police actions had been illegal or resented, I doubt people would have lined the streets to cheer them afterwards.

Another issue: There was national guard, SWAT, DHS, bomb units, etc. already there before the bombing for a "bomb drill." Convenient..

.. because they're exactly the people you would expect to be in place when you're providing security for a major public event ..

If these agencies hadn't been available, then there might have been something to complain about.

When the FBI released the pictures they said they needed help identifying the suspects. Obviosly that has proven to be a lie since they had already interviewed at least one of them

You're assuming either that the FBI have the facial recognition software that only exists on TV and in the movies or that the same agents who interviewed the bomber were part of this investigation. I don't think it's any surprise that neither of these were true.

They have shown portions of video and stills of the suspects carrying the backpacks (which honestly don't look like they contain bombs, they are not nearly heavy enough)

Backpack bombs that looked even smaller killed 37 in London in 2005

and they say they have video showing them setting the bags down, but they have yet to show that video??

Not sure I see your point: they released video they thought would help with identification. I don't see any reason that would be the video showing them placing the backpacks.

At a minimum the FBI knew this was going to happen and allowed it to happen, I hope that is as far as it goes. I have my doubts though...

There is absolutely no evidence of that at all! That's an absurd claim and pretty offensive to the people in the FBI who have devoted their lives to protecting people.

 

[pbf98]

Were there illegal searches? Did the police forcibly search any property after an owner had specifically refused them permission?

Now I may be wrong, but I believe that there was no choice to the houses that they conducted searches in. And most people don't even realize it would have been an illegal search and seizure, because it didn't necessarily involve their innocence being questioned. Whereas when police show up to a home where suspected drugs are, the owner immediately asks for a warrant..

Not sure I see your point: they released video they thought would help with identification. I don't see any reason that would be the video showing them placing the backpacks.

Well on the other hand I don't see why they wouldn't let it out, it would put an end to people saying that they didn't do it, and that it was a setup, and etc..

That's an outlandish claim. First, it wasn't martial law as the army wasn't involved. Second, so far as I'm aware, the police didn't arrest anyone who chose to defy their advice. Advice which seems pretty reasonable when you bear in mind they were after a suspect who was armed with guns and bombs, had already killed 4 people and showed no compunction about killing others and that his escape would have been facilitated had there been crowds he could blend into.

To that I will just leave you a quote from one of our founding fathers:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

 

[SiempreTuna]

Now I may be wrong, but I believe that there was no choice to the houses that they conducted searches in. And most people don't even realize it would have been an illegal search and seizure, because it didn't necessarily involve their innocence being questioned. Whereas when police show up to a home where suspected drugs are, the owner immediately asks for a warrant..

I haven't heard anything either way and I'm sure that, in the heat of the moment, some procedural short cuts were taken. Had there however, been any express violation of a householders' rights - i.e. a search being conducted despite express refusal - I'm pretty sure we'd have heard quite a bit about it by now: Americans are - quite rightly - fairly vocal about their rights

Well on the other hand I don't see why they wouldn't let it out, it would put an end to people saying that they didn't do it, and that it was a setup, and etc..

I don't know about the US, but in the UK evidence that may be critical to a future prosecution is frequently not made public before the trial (though obviously it is made known to the defense during discovery).

There's also the issue that the video may not be terribly clear which would also feed the conspiracy-nut beast.

To that I will just leave you a quote from one of our founding fathers:
"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

On the other hand, the police and FBI could cite a certain George Washington:

I shall not be deprived ... of a comfort in the worst event, if I retain a consciousness of having acted to the best of my judgment

or

Remember that it is the actions, and not the commission, that make the officer, and that there is more expected from him, than the title

or

I have diligently sought the public welfare; and have endeavoured to inculcate the same principles in all that are under me. These reflections will be a cordial to my mind as long as I am able to distinguish between Good & Evil.

Having said that, he did also say:

Make the most of the Indian hemp seed, and sow it everywhere!

Who knew Washington was a hippy*?

Maybe BF was more reliable .. well, except when he declared:

Slavery is such an atrocious debasement of human nature

.. despite owning two slaves himself.





* hemp is hashish / marijuana / cannabis

 

[Bob Maxey]

CNN is reporting that now the suspect will receive a public defender, so that is an improvement, but it seems to make the decision not to Mirandize him even more pointless. Surely any lawyer will advise him not to speak to authorities. Anybody who watches tv would know that anyway. What am I missing here?

A good lawyer will tell you not to agree with the officer(s) that "yes, indeed, it is indeed a nice, spring day." Once you are in cuffs, do not even utter a punctuation mark.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Were there illegal searches? Did the police forcibly search any property after an owner had specifically refused them permission?



That's an outlandish claim. First, it wasn't martial law as the army wasn't involved. Second, so far as I'm aware, the police didn't arrest anyone who chose to defy their advice. Advice which seems pretty reasonable when you bear in mind they were after a suspect who was armed with guns and bombs, had already killed 4 people and showed no compunction about killing others and that his escape would have been facilitated had there been crowds he could blend into.

If the police actions had been illegal or resented, I doubt people would have lined the streets to cheer them afterwards.

So this is perfectly legal and acceptable for people to be forcibly ripped from their homes with rifles in their faces and groped by police while other police search their house? Just watch the video of what the door to door searches were. That is OK????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

 

[Bob Maxey]

If you are a suspect in cuffs or god forbid, a victim, your views on how the police should proceed are likely much different than the views expressed on a phone forum.

Much like the idea that the democratic process is fair; until you are sitting on a horse, wearing a noose and the crowd deciding your fate is around you, shouting "Hang Him High and slap the horse on the arse." Then, you do not want a democratic view . . . you want to get off the horse by hook or by crook.

If you are in a building where you are told there is a bomb, you likely have a different view as well. Having been in the proverbial "building" in several separate high profile cases, I can tell you, the idea of a fair trial goes out the door as blind rage flows in.

Or the father of a family member seeing the wheels of justice favoring the suspect and his/her rights; wanting answers that come after a long investigation and slow moving wheels of justice.

Seems at some point, a few people are bothered no matter what the press or coppers do and that changes when they become a victim or suspect.

The fine line is often just a bit too fine to easily navigate.

 

[Bob Maxey]

So this is perfectly legal and acceptable for people to be forcibly ripped from their homes with rifles in their faces and groped by police while other police search their house? Just watch the video of what the door to door searches were. That is OK????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

What does the law say about it? Perhaps SCOTUS has decided the issue already. Bob is not sure, really.

Ask the victims, they will say yes, search away.

Ask the ACLU and they will sue; someone, anyone, as well as the manufacturer of the pressure cookers.

Ask the police and they are too busy trying to find the other suspect that created what can be called a terrorist act.

Ask the DHS and, well, as the old saying goes: "If you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

If a bomber is supposedly hiding in your apartment, do you want to wait for warrents or perhaps it is best to let the bomber trigger a suicide bomb? Do they go away because you are not home or enter?

Lots to consider and there are lots of nails, And we are not sure who should have the hammers.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Pretty convenient for the FBI he can't speak due to a throat/neck injury.

Hmmm . . . what are you saying?

 

[ElasticNinja]

Do they think he tried to commit suicide? It's a sad story either way. How did this kid end up like this, up to his neck in this shit? Can't help but feel sorry for him.

 

[chrlswltrs]

Do they think he tried to commit suicide? It's a sad story either way. How did this kid end up like this, up to his neck in this shit? Can't help but feel sorry for him.

There was a picture of him climbing out of the boat under his own power without a serious neck injury, then minutes later he was on the ground getting a tracheotomy and may never speak again...

 

[Gmash]

Apparently he has been formally charged and read his rights, so thankfully the Obama administration ignored the pleas of Senators McCain and Graham to have him declared an enemy combatant and sent to Gitmo for a military trial. (and they are very unhappy about it) The feds have a great record of prosecuting these cases, so I think the right decision was made here.

 

[Gmash]

Do they think he tried to commit suicide? It's a sad story either way. How did this kid end up like this, up to his neck in this shit? Can't help but feel sorry for him.

Sad? Yes, and I do think his brother got him caught up in all this, but to feel sorry for him goes too far. He is an adult, and has his own free will. He could have prevented this whole thing, or even just given up when his brother was killed, but he continued to fight. I say he deserves the worst punishment available. (which is not necessarily the death penalty in my opinion)

 

[ElasticNinja]

Apparently he has been formally charged and read his rights, so thankfully the Obama administration ignored the pleas of Senators McCain and Graham to have him declared an enemy combatant and sent to Gitmo for a military trial. (and they are very unhappy about it) The feds have a great record of prosecuting these cases, so I think the right decision was made here.

Apparently Peter King was spouting that enemy combatant rhetoric too. How quickly has he forgotten his support for IRA terrorism?

 

[chrlswltrs]

He was always going to be charged and read his rights. The public safety clause that was used initially allows interrogation of someone for 48 hours after capture to question that person about corroborators to prevent eminent attacks...

 

[pbf98]

The obama administration said from the start that they would not let his case go to military trial.

We don't even know if this was an act of terrorism yet. Yes it was a big event that instilled fear into many, but thats not only what an act of terrorism is.
The definition is: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

So unless he confesses to backing a party to get political attention I don't think we should call it an act of terrorism. The only thing linking it to possible terrorism that the public knows is that the older brother went to Russia for a period of time, and where he went after landing in Russia we don't know(the public) and what he did is still unknown to us.

An interesting thing I saw on CNN the other day. People were upset with all the news media reporting their false leads on the investigation, and then hours later having to update everyone saying they were wrong. A panel of reporters were discussing what caused it to happen and why they let it happen.. One of the reporters main points for why let it happen was twitter and other social media sources. He said they have to beat them before they get the info out... I really don't think they should rush their info just to beat the average joe with a twitter account. In fact to me that is a reason for not wanting to listen to the news..if they think they have to rush their own investigations to get facts, the facts aren't going to be as clear.

 

[funkylogik]

I dont understand how a bombing that killed only three people (no matter how tragic that is and it really is) can be classed as a weapon of mass distruction even if its considered part of a 'war'??

What defines a WMD and how many americans own a WMD?

 

[funkylogik]

The obama administration said from the start that they would not let his case go to military trial.

We don't even know if this was an act of terrorism yet. Yes it was a big event that instilled fear into many, but thats not only what an act of terrorism is.
The definition is: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

So unless he confesses to backing a party to get political attention I don't think we should call it an act of terrorism. The only thing linking it to possible terrorism that the public knows is that the older brother went to Russia for a period of time, and where he went after landing in Russia we don't know(the public) and what he did is still unknown to us.

An interesting thing I saw on CNN the other day. People were upset with all the news media reporting their false leads on the investigation, and then hours later having to update everyone saying they were wrong. A panel of reporters were discussing what caused it to happen and why they let it happen.. One of the reporters main points for why let it happen was twitter and other social media sources. He said they have to beat them before they get the info out... I really don't think they should rush their info just to beat the average joe with a twitter account. In fact to me that is a reason for not wanting to listen to the news..if they think they have to rush their own investigations to get facts, the facts aren't going to be as clear.

Define "political" though mate. Politics is just a name for how a group of humans/animals interact to create/enforce/react to a social structure imo

 

[SiempreTuna]

The definition is: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims

Actually, that definition is a little tricky: it could potentially mean that 9/11 was not a terrorist attack as no-one has ever really been able to establish exactly what 'political aims' al Qaeda has - outside of some vague idea of kicking the Americans out of Saudi idea / destroying the west.

It's part of the reason that no-one has ever been able to propose a political / negotiated solution to the 'war on terror'. Usually, where you have a terrorist war the terrorists have a specific aim around which you can negotiate a solution - e.g. Northern Ireland. Not the case with al Qaeda.

I dont understand how a bombing that killed only three people (no matter how tragic that is and it really is) can be classed as a weapon of mass distruction even if its considered part of a 'war'??

What defines a WMD and how many americans own a WMD?

If small IEDs are now defined as WMD, finally Bush and Blair can justify the the war in Iraq