Boston Bomber charged with WMD charge...

1. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   If a pressure cooker full of gunpowder is a WMD, then we found millions of WMDs in Iraq...
   
   Seems like a stupid charge, although I'm glad they are charging him as a citizen.

   replyreport
   1. 74

      Mighty Momposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      That is EXACTLY what I thought when I read that. We really need to rethink the definition of WMDS in Iraq!!
      
      Not to usurp your thread, Jaxson (although you beat me to posting the same by 5 mins), but I suspect the non-enemy combatant status will be more discussed than the WMDs.
      Here is an excerpt from/link to the WashPo article I read.
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ … story.html
      
      Seems the issue is already lining up along partisan lines. McCain, Ayotte, Graham and King.
      Starting to earn the label "gang of four."
      
      I agree with you that he should not be tried as an enemy combatant, given he is an American citizen.
      What do others here think?
      
      
      Tsarnaev “will not be treated as an enemy combatant,” Carney said at a White House news briefing. “We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions.” He said that since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, “we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists.”
      
      Four Republican members of Congress — Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), Kelly Ayotte (N.H.) and Rep. Peter T. King (N.Y.) — demanded Saturday that Tsarnaev be treated as an “enemy combatant” rather than as a common criminal suspect. That would enable the government to charge him under the laws of war in a military commission or to hold him indefinitely without charges.
      
      But prominent Democrats disagreed Sunday, saying that Tsarnaev should not be treated as an enemy combatant and that he should be prosecuted in federal court. “I do not believe under the military commission law that he is eligible for that. It would be unconstitutional to do that,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee.

      replyreport
2. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 12 years ago

   Not at all, it's a good discussion to have.
   
   I wish McCain would just leave politics. It's clear, he is a citizen, he has the rights of a citizen. As you might know from other threads about Constitutional rights, I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MAKING EXCEPTIONS.
   
   Exceptions lead to exceptions lead to exceptions, and soon your rights don't matter anymore.

   replyreport
   1. 77

      Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I agree with you on that one

      replyreport
   2. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Why did Obama waive reading the kid his rights? If he's going to be tried as an American citizen, he should have the same rights as all American citizens.
      
      That bothers me.
      Obama, frankly, bothers me.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I agree, exceptions are dangerous things.

         replyreport
         1. 80

            Seth Winterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Agreed

            replyreport
      2. 77

         Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, I'm sure it was Obama who told the Boston police not to read him his rights. I assumed they were waiting until they could actually tell if he was going to survive or not and if they could talk to him first.
         
         Actually, it was John McCain and his friends who didn't want him to be treated like an American citizen.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Uninvited Writer,
            
            You're completely wrong about that. It was the Obama Administration that decided not to Mirandize the kid immediately.
            
            http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/20 … spect?lite
            
            McCain wanted the kid classified as an enemy combatant, which might have saved his life. As it is - he's looking at the death penalty now. McCain was wrong, because what the kid is accused of - does not legally rise to the definition of terrorism...not yet, so he should be tried as a civilian. If the charges change - that could change as well.
            
            But, if he's being tried as a civilian, it's important that he receive the same rights as other Americans receive. The ACLU opposed the Obama Administration on the not-Mirandizing, and the kid's been charged now, which requires a reading of his rights.
            
            It always amazes me when folks that don't have a clue about our laws or procedures act as if they do.

            replyreport
            1. 77

               Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               Well, they did read him his Miranda rights when he was capable of receiving them. And he is being tried as a civilian. However, I don't believe they have the death penalty in Massachusetts, although I could be wrong.
               
               No one I have heard of who lives there is complaining about what happened during the man hunt. And the majority of them did applaud the police after it was over.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  You're right that MA does not have the death penalty, but MA has not charged the kid. The charges, to date, are federal and they carry the possibility of the death penalty.
                  
                  I'm a little surprised that you haven't heard the complaints yet - but the cheers might still drowning them out. That will (hopefully) change, when more folks find out.
                  
                  Keep your eye open for stories on the supposed throat wound. Pics of the kid climbing out of the boat do not indicate he was bleeding from that area at that time, yet he was very bloody in the ambulance pic.
                  
                  No matter what we think about the kid and his crimes, he deserves the same rights and protections as all other American citizens.
                  
                  Or we're in more trouble than we think we are.

                  replyreport
                  1. 77

                     Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I have already said that he deserves the same rights and protections as any other suspect. I just don't believe there is any big conspiracy.

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        There is no conspiracy as much as there is a brainwashed feeling that the Obama Administration has the nation's best interest at heart. Taking away the rights of one - hurts us all.

                        replyreport
                        1. 77

                           Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           For the third time... he deserves the same treatment as every other American.
                           
                           Do you believe that bomb shelters were a bad idea in wartime London? I believe you could get arrested for being out on the street during an air raid. It was for public safety.
                           
                           Tell me, what harm was caused by asking people to remain in their houses for one day? Yes, houses were searched but the people were not treated any differently than when police are looking for criminals.
                           
                           What would you rather they had done?

                           replyreport
                           1. 0

                              HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                              Actually, the innocent people were treated differently.  They knew the bomber was wounded and they knew he was on foot. It turns out he wasn't far from where he deserted the car.
                              
                              The Boston fiasco locked down a city of over a million people, many of whom needed to work to put food on the table. Unlike the UK, American citizens prefer not to have military state. Yet, that's what they had. Already, we've had foreign relation professors tell us that the Boston lock down has resulted in the biggest terrorist success to date. It is sure to spark copycat bombers.
                              
                              I don't know what happened in wartime London, but being arrested for not being in a bomb shelter is of questionable intelligence.
                              
                              I'm glad you agree that he deserves the same treatment as other Americans, and hopefully you'll keep in mind who decided to suspend those rights.

                              replyreport
                              1. 62

                                 Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                 You are calling the UK a country that was so concerned about a tyranny of the military after the civil war that they refused to have a professional army until the modern era a military state in comparison to a nation with the highest military spending in the world?
                                 
                                 As for the lock down it probably saved lives, when there are terrorists on the loose with grenades etc. then public safety has to be the prime consideration especially when we were not sure what we were dealing with.
                                 
                                 Keeping people off the street for two days is not an abuse it's a reasonable precaution.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 59

                                    John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                                    You might have gathered that I have no regard for Thatcher but when the IRA blew up the Grand Hotel in the middle of the night, they din't lock down Brighton, they carried on with their party conference and Thatcher was speaking at it at nine in the morning.
                                    Same when they blew up the centre of Manchester, we just carried on.

                                    replyreport
                  2. 0

                     HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                     I don't know the legality of this procedure in the UK, but in the US, the citizens have rights that counter this type of police-state behavior.
                     
                     And yet -- it happened.
                     
                     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAgxnyKmXOw
                     
                     Let's keep in mind that the massive Boston lock down failed. They did not find the bomber.
                     
                     A boat owner did.
                     
                     Don't trade your freedoms for a little bit of perceived security. If you do - eventually you'll lose both.

                     replyreport
                     1. 78

                        wildernessposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                        The lockdown failed?  The purpose of the lockdown was to prevent additional deaths, not find the bomber - how many people died after the lockdown?
                        
                        I'd say it was successful...

                        replyreport
                        1. 0

                           HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                           The lock down failed.
                           
                           The military presence that ran innocent folks out of their homes and rolled down the streets in armored vehicles failed. They did not find the bomber.
                           
                           A boat owner did. He's the only hero in this story. Those who think they were kept safe by the big show of force - are fooling themselves.

                           replyreport
3. 61

   Mark Ewbieposted 12 years ago

   Ah, everyone has got the pressure cooker WMD gag.  Absurdist nonsense of the worst kind from the US government.  A stupid kid with a home made bomb.
   
   As regards enemy combatant.  What is that exactly?  A solider who has no soldiers rights? A citizen with no rights?  A grey Orwellian rule to allow torture, rendition, detention without charge?
   
   We still have one British citizen in Guantanamo.  Eleven years - no charge - no hope of a trial - no freedom - not even the freedom to starve himself to death.
   
   Enemy combatant, WMD, war on terror, collateral damage - these are the words of poison that our leaders - UK and US - have used to lie to their people.  Thousands upon hundreds of thousands have, and still are dying.  Freedoms have been destroyed in our own countries - let alone the meddling and damage done elsewhere.
   
   And these lying hypocrites call a pressure cooker a WMD.  They are beneath contempt.

   replyreport
4. 59

   John Holdenposted 12 years ago

   I've got a pressure cooker in my kitchen - should I be expecting a knock on my door?
   
   And yes, try them in a civilian court as common criminals, don't validate them by calling them "enemy combatants"

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      In essence, I agree with that, but the fiasco show of force in Boston, already validated these acts and is likely to encourage more attacks in the US.
      
      a video is out showing SWAT teams running innocent Boston citizens out of their homes at gunpoint and yelling at them to "keep their hands up" as they made their way to a neighbor's house.
      
      Anyone interested in preserving rights knows what happened in Boston was not constitutional.

      replyreport
5. 65

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   The statutes happens to define a bomb as a WMD.  It was a bomb.  So...

   replyreport
   1. 0

      JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Then the statutes are stupid. Should we call guns WMDs? I mean, a single shotgun can kill more people than this WMD did... I guess that makes a shotgun a Weapon of Seriously Mass Destruction.
      
      But, if that's the statute, then everybody who criticized the Iraq war has to admit that we found countless WMDs.

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Brenda Durhamposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         I'm pretty sure Iraq had chemical weapons and etc. plus bombs, all of which are classified as WMD's.   So, yeah, they had WMD's, and the intent wasn't self-protection according to all evidence.
         
         The difference between a shotgun and a bomb, when considering whether they're WMD's, is, of course, the fact that no one would use a bomb to protect his home from a break-in;  they'd use a gun or some other weapon that would target that individual criminal or group of criminals without deliberately causing widespread indiscriminate harm.
         
         Bombs are specifically WMD's because they're meant to cause harm to anyone and everyone who just happens to be in the vicinity.
         
         Just because a gun CAN be used for mass destruction doesn't mean that's what it was manufactured for.    If we go by that definition, a knife CAN be used to kill many many people, but that doesn't mean that's what it was designed for nor what it's normally used for.    A bomb, by its very design, is meant to be a weapon of mass destruction.

         replyreport
      2. 65

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Yes, but the statute being stupid is very different from the charge being stupid.  They charge people as the law specifies.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            JaxsonRaineposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            Still a stupid charge
            
            Valid, but stupid.

            replyreport
6. 0

   Brenda Durhamposted 12 years ago

   I'm wondering, if the older brother wasn't a citizen, then how and why was he allowed to stay here for 10 years?..............
   
   And if the younger brother got his citizenship just so he could be legal whilst participating in terrorism-planning and execution, honestly, I don't see why that doesn't nullify his citizenship papers anyway.  But, since he is considered to be an American citizen,  I suppose the only reason he won't be tried for treason is because he didn't specifically target a government building or something.....

   replyreport
   1. 65

      psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      There a many visa types that would allow this,including permanent residency (green card).

      replyreport
7. 65

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   The lockdown was a reasonable precaution given what they knew at the time.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      It wasn't reasonable in the least. the kid was wounded and on foot. They knew he couldn't get far - and, of course he didn't. Yet, they locked down parts of the city miles away. That's not smart - that's controlling. Then, they completely missed him in their search. Keystone Kops - that's all it was, and the Bostonians who were treated roughly should file suit, in my opinion.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         For most of the lockdown the perp had no been identified at all.  It could have been any group of people large or small and the attack could have been ongoing. There were reports of bombs going of in other locations and dozens of potential bombs were being investigated.
         
         They did not have the benefit of hindsight.

         replyreport
      2. 59

         John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Howard, I'm worried, I'm agreeing with you 100% on this thread! Must be time to take my pills

         replyreport
8. 61

   Mark Ewbieposted 12 years ago

   

   replyreport
9. 65

   psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

   It is also a request.  As far as I know you would not get arrested for ignoring it.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      I have a hard time understanding why anyone followed it.

      replyreport
      1. 65

         psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

         Well if they did, that was their choice. I saw no evidence of people on the streets being rounded up and arrested. No? So the "lockdown" was a recommendation.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

            A recommendation?
            
            Hardly. Watch the video I posted earlier.

            replyreport
            1. 65

               psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

               What does potential illegal search of a house have to do with whether disobeying the lockdown would attract sanctions?
               
               My question is did anyone experience any official consequences of disobeying the lockdown?  The answer seems to be: no.  IMHO, the lack of consequences for disobeying makes it a recommendation not an order.

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

                  They called it an "order." They pointed guns at innocent homeowners, forced them from their homes at gunpoint and shouted at them to keep their hands up - as if they were the criminals. I don't know if anyone was ticketed, but being shouted at when a gun is pointed at your head - pretty much indicates that you are being "ordered" to do something.
                  
                  And after all that....they STILL failed to find the bomber.

                  replyreport
10. 65

    psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago

    I see the search behavior as separate and it looks illegal to me.  They needed permission to search unless they had a good reason to think the guy was in that very house.
    
    But just asking people stay stay inside, even when you call it an order, well.  They call hurricane evacuations orders too, and everyone feels free to ignore them.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       In the aftermath of Katrina, they actually went door to door and confiscated weapons. I don't know of another disaster where they did that, though.
       
       I don't disagree with asking folks to stay inside for their own safety, but that home-search at gunpoint was repeated hundreds of times. Most folks don't have a problem with cordoning off small areas, but not one million people when there is no indication a wounded kid could even reach those outlying areas.
       
       This is not a good precedent to set.

       replyreport
       1. 62

          Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this

          Why exactly do you presume he could not steal a car? That fear was why areas were locked down voluntarily.
          
          As for confiscating weapons or searching houses illegally that is crossing the line.

          replyreport
          1. 0

             HowardBThinameposted 12 years agoin reply to this

             The authorities said that if he stole a car - he was probably far away from Boston. Should they have locked down the entire state? Surrounding states?

             replyreport