Will it be classed as federal or state, is there any chance he will get the rope this fella???
Printable View
Will it be classed as federal or state, is there any chance he will get the rope this fella???
Yeah, more-or-less. The presence of foreign individuals in the Afghan and Bosnian conflicts has been well-documented, but as far as I'm aware, to a lesser degree in Algeria, Chechnya and Kashmir (for example).Quote:
True, it is how extremists see it. They just forget the help to the Bosnian and the Kosovars… In fact, until the Bush No2, the US policy was more in favour of Muslim Populations than others (some said at that time it was to counter-balance the unconditional support for Israel). And before, help to Afghanistan against the Russian support of Pakistan and Indonesia…
“The presence of foreign individuals in the Afghan and Bosnian conflicts” Err, more than individuals… In Bosnia, the existence of a Mudjahine Brigade was confirmed. And I had a 1st eye witness as one of my translators after the war in Gorazde was one of their translators.
Even the Chechens had their moment when the west did care. Until they started to kidnap NGO workers, cut fingers and ask for ransoms… Then attack on theatre and schools didn’t help…
No we aren't. I am against it. Rand Paul is against it. I'm sure that Diane Feinstein is for ir
Getting your ideas from yemeni periodicals does not an enemy combatant makeQuote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brenus
Well, those still constitute individuals. Groups of individuals. Or somehing.
Soo... basically the republicans.Quote:
No we aren't. I am against it. Rand Paul is against it. I'm sure that Diane Feinstein is for ir
...Okay, okay; minus those who aren't 100% crazy yet know they cant get elected without the republican name.
Should I be worried about an issue of them being seen as "enemy combatants", or is there still some level of clear thinking going on?
Let's cut the **** and hope he doesn't get tortured.
I <3 memes.
Terrorists are criminals and should be dealt with by the law enforcement agencies.
I think in this case the Boston police department I guess. If the guy had run into a school and shot 20 children they would have done the same after all. Terrorism is just that usually, a despicable act of mass murder and mass murder makes you a criminal. Terrorism is just a fancy name for mass murder with a certain purpose but that shouldn't change who deals with it and how we deal with it. It's just because of the irrational fear of it that governments get away with more when they say that word IMO.
Oh and he's an American citizen anyway. His brother wasn't but he's dead.
Despite it being a seemingly minor point, I shall have to respectfully disagree in parts with my German friend. Whilst there is no proper definition to be found on terrorism (none internationally recognised), the threat of harming a populace and destroying property is often enough for one to be classed a terrorist. In other words, one need not be a mass murderer to be a terrorist (mass murderer is catergorised as one who murders four or more people at one location during one continuous period of time). Similarily, a mass murderer is not necessarily a terrorist as they may often not have an anterior motive and simply kill their family (sociopaths).Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Terrorism presupposes a political agenda against a state or a people. An act of terrorism would therefore be destruction of property and intentional harming of people (the latter is often done without prejudice).
This raises further questions about this case assuming the two men were indeed politically motivated (which still has to be determined but would seem highly unusual if they were not). If they are classed as terrorists, who has jurisdiction? Ordinarily, one would assume that the city of Boston or the State of Massachusetts would claim such. However, is there a case for the Federal Government to claim jusrisdiction? If that is so, could the surviving member of the two brothers be classed as an 'enemy combatant' even if it cannot be proven that he is a member of a state (group) with whom the US is at war? This would seem extremely shady as he could be denied legal councel. So, which one is it?
In terms of law, this might well turn out to be quite interesting.
Quid
I intentionally didn't look up the definitions but my point was not just about those and more about the level of escalation this causes. Why should the federal government throw a fit and attack other countries, restrict the populace more and whatnot simply because a guy who did something horrible had a political motive? And the mafia also works against the US government, there are gangs who have street shootouts with governments agents, yet noone ever sends in the drones even though they could be classified as enemy combatants since they belong to an organization that does not follow US laws and shoots at government officials. Terrorists do what they do for private enrichment just like mafiosi do, it's just one wants to enrich his soul and the other his wallet (which he only wants to enrich his soul in the end...). The RAF in Germany and the IRA in Britain/Ireland are classed as terrorist organizations and are/were being fought by police. If that is only because they are citizens of their respective countries then this case is clear because the only surviving Boston bomber is a US citizen as well...Quote:
Originally Posted by Quid
I'm obviously not a state lawyer or know anything about these laws, I'm just saying how I see it and that I may just disagree with the definitions modern politicians use because IMO they use some of them for shady reasons.
For it to be terrorism they would have to be backed by something/someone. From what the FBI got so far it were probably fairly harmless guys pulling of a stunt
It seems that the lone wolf is the new face of terrorism in the Western world.
Whether or not you treat terrorists differently from other criminals depends on whether or not you regard them as having any sort of legitimacy. Hence why Thatcher enraged so many people by refusing to give IRA prisoners special status or privileges in prison.
With this I agree with you, old horse. However, I cannot possibly see this escalating into more than a short fit of argumentation pro and contra trying this fellow either locally of federally. This might hinge on the point of him being seen as either a terrorist or simply as a murderer.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The point you are making about enrichment of the 'soul or the pocket' does not impact this decision and is only a minorly related topic into which I shall not indulge but with which I could potentially agree.
Quid
uhm...no, for it to be terrorism it has to be ideologically motivated, you can have a lone wolf terrorist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
and another thing - a pressure cooker filled with gunpowder and ball bearings is a WMD now??
the invasion of Iraq makes more sense now.
It seems he will be tried as a plain old civilian mass murderer:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...93L1B720130423
Which likely means that wet dreams of an invasion of Chechnya will be frustrated. Too bad, it seemed a natural after Afghanistan/Iraq.
Are civilian mass murderers always tried at a federal level? I thought he's being tried at a federal level with charges of terrorism and faces a death sentence. That being important since if he were tried in Massachussetts, there'd be no death sentence.
On the radio here I understood Obama specifically managed something so the guy could face the death sentence instead of life imprisonment but I also heard that's pretty normal and couldn't find any further evidence, maybe they misrepresented it on the radio or I misunderstood?
As for the WMD thing, that means Obama drops WMDs in Pakistan. Also he killed two people and wounded a lot more but if someone shoots 20 children in a school and wounds two dozen more, does that mean he will from now on also get charged with using a WMD?
On the other hand, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a bomb, are good people with bombs, no?
Not that he doesn't deserve death-penalty, but altering something after the crime is a big no, pretty bad if that's true.
My understanding is that he is being tried for a federal crime; the prosecutors have to determine whether they will seek the death penalty or not.
I think it's the use of WMD's that elevates this to a federal crime.
Yes, and since anyone who really wants a bomb will find one, regulating bombs simply does not make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Motive is in, motivation was indeed islam. He and his brother had some sort of breakdown and radicalised.
Dafuk? Charged with use of weapons of mass destruction? Off to Norway with ya to learn how to deal with tragedy. Despite what Breivik did the justice department kept a clear head, no greater revenge than an honest trial
It was those darn Caucasians!
Maybe that's what they were talking about on the radio, that Obama encouraged to charge him with use of a WMD.Quote:
Originally Posted by HopAlongBunny
Interesting article about that here.
And more.
Apparently they applied the same charge to Timothy McVeigh, but then again his bomb was apparently much larger.
We can only hope the government uses drones to find such terrorists faster in the future.
Ohohoh, that's a slipup of Obama. I understand that people are sad and angry but you shouldn't always take that into consideration. In the end these are radicalised amateurs not proffessional terrorists
12 person Sleeper Cell?
http://www.opposingviews.com/i/socie...s-tamerlan-and
Also, the Police reported the kid ran over his brothers body. But an eye witness reported the police ran over the guy with an SUV, then shot him some more.
How do you feel about that, if it is true?
If the police ran over the kid and subsequently shot him while incapacitated, then lied about the sequence of events - those officers involved should be suspended and the ones responsible should be charged with excessive force. No one should get away with bloodlust and conspiracy to suppress evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
I'm astounded at the harping of the media on the Chechen connection here. It has nothing to do with anything. Someone's ethnic backgroun means very little. I'd expect that Tamerlan has spent as much time in Chechnya as I have in Ireland, I doubt that Johar has ever been. These kids are from central Asia, not the Caucasus. They were raised as far away from Chechnya as New York is from San Francisco, maybe further. These guys are kyrghyz/kazak and would share feelings of global, rather than the traditional Chechen regional, jihad. The countries that they were from were Islamic countries, not repressed enclaves within Russia.
But the media plays up the Chechen aspect,even though it makes no sense and the kids are unlikely to have ever been closer to that region than Machakala, Dagestan.
Mantra Number One of media reporting = sell more advertisingQuote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Mantra Number Two of media reporting = focus on the "conflict" that is at the center of the issue
So, RUSSIA involved is obviously a bigger conflict ramification than Uzbekistan. If there is any such connector, you report that.
I searched around and found this report: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sjmjZjssnk
I doubt many people care how the guy died and it saves the state the cost of a trial.
I doubt that any more gets said on the topic.
But to me, no matter how big a scumbag he was the police should not be judge, jury, and executioner.
If they lie about one thing how do you believe them on anything else?
oh my.
That's not a "report". That's a single eyewitness, who are notoriously unreliable.