OT: Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[Robviously]

But he said himself that they were motivated by Islam and a desire to strike back at America due to its mistreatment of Muslims.

This is slightly, but IMO significantly, different than the "traditional" extremist motivation, primarily to destroy and convert us infidels.

I'd say it fits pretty nicely into the category of wanting to destroy the infidels. I don't see how someone could place a bomb next to an 8 year old boy, his sister, and their mother without first deciding that they're subhuman.

 

You could chalk this up to them feeling like the US has slighted Muslims, but radical violent religious nuts are always going to be able to conjure up some perceived slight or threat to them and lash out. And of course the US doesn't have a spotless record internationally. But the problem is that US (and most of the rest of the developed world) is richer, happier, more productive, and seemingly more advanced in every way -- which flies directly in the face of people who think their particular sect of their particular religion is "supposed to be" ruling the world because that's what God wants. So there's always going to be a problem because the theocrats can't reconcile that.

 

And when Step 1 of your belief system is "We're always the good guys no matter what we do, because we believe in the right God and worship the right way", Step 2 can be just about anything. If that means the "others" (anyone not in your group) have to die, then so what? Refer back to Step 1.

 

Unfortunately, this means there's no solution.

[Stoner]

Maybe not violent in the blowing up civilians sense, but there was that not so little thing about allowing child molesting priests to remain priests.

 

Thanks for going there for me. I didn't want to be the one to bring it up.

 

That is what I had hoped.

 

I do read most, if not all, of your posts.

 

My apologies, my friend.

 

Now can you two work on the Arab-Israeli conflict?

[SwampD]

There is an enormous difference between winning a war and a final solution. I find the accusation that wanting the first means also wanting the second highly offensive and, as I previously posted, ridiculous.

I'm glad you find it offensive andi I believe you. You should go back and re-read some of your post in this thread, though. There is an awful lot of talk of killing and even a mention of butt-rape. I'm not sure we're going to solve a lot of problems with those. I'd rather find answers through forgiveness and understanding. If that makes me a soft PC lefty f@g, then so be it.

[nfreeman]

I'm glad you find it offensive andi I believe you. You should go back and re-read some of your post in this thread, though. There is an awful lot of talk of killing and even a mention of butt-rape. I'm not sure we're going to solve a lot of problems with those. I'd rather find answers through forgiveness and understanding. If that makes me a soft PC lefty f@g, then so be it.

 

I am fine with killing (and waterboarding and butt-raping, for that matter) those who have decided to commit or assist acts of mass murder against this country. I think these steps are necessary to win the war that militant Islam has declared on the West. That is so far from supporting a "final solution" that the 2 concepts don't belong in the same message board, let alone the same conversation.

 

And I respect your preference for forgiveness and understanding, although I think it is an unrealistic and ineffective approach. But that preference should not be accompanied by accusations of preferences for a "final solution" aimed at those who disagree with you.

[LastPommerFan]

I am fine with killing (and waterboarding and butt-raping, for that matter) those who have decided to commit or assist acts of mass murder against this country. I think these steps are necessary to win the war that militant Islam has declared on the West. That is so far from supporting a "final solution" that the 2 concepts don't belong in the same message board, let alone the same conversation.

 

And I respect your preference for forgiveness and understanding, although I think it is an unrealistic and ineffective approach. But that preference should not be accompanied by accusations of preferences for a "final solution" aimed at those who disagree with you.

 

nFreeman, your position is reasonable, It is when it is combined with billy's comments that the religion itself is at it's core the source of the violence, that genocide comes into the equation. People are smart enough not to get to close to suggesting that, but the combination of the idea that violence against our enemies is appropriate and that our enemy is the entire religion of Islam is not terrible out of place with what Swamp was alluding to. Billy was basically saying that as long as there is Islam, it will be violent to the west because that is what the faith is all about. There is only one place that thinking leads.

[Taro T]

As this discussion has shifted to motivations for this heinous crime, I am disappointed that the surviving brother is not being considered an enemy combatant but rather getting put into the normal criminal justice system.

 

If he and his brother were acting alone or merely off information they gleaned from the internet, that's fine. Use the evidence on hand before interrogating him upon his return to the normal criminal justice system. (It appears that there is a strong criminal case currently against this man and any info gleaned from being outside the criminal justice system should not be used against him within it.) But if he was acting as part of a larger organization, we'd be much further ahead in stopping the next attack if we had the intelligence that should be gathered.

[SwampD]

I am fine with killing (and waterboarding and butt-raping, for that matter) those who have decided to commit or assist acts of mass murder against this country. I think these steps are necessary to win the war that militant Islam has declared on the West. That is so far from supporting a "final solution" that the 2 concepts don't belong in the same message board, let alone the same conversation.

 

And I respect your preference for forgiveness and understanding, although I think it is an unrealistic and ineffective approach. But that preference should not be accompanied by accusations of preferences for a "final solution" aimed at those who disagree with you.

bold 1 - It's not as far as you seem to think.

 

bold 2 - and using force has been effective up til now?

 

Look, I understand that you have to smack your kid on the ass to get him to behave, but maybe he wouldn't be acting out if dad wasn't doing lines off of his passed out girlfreind's stomach.

 

Over one hundred thousand Muslims have been killed since we invaded Iraq. With every speech by the president(s) or generals ending with "God bless America", you might not think we are fighting a holy war, but I'm sure a Muslim over there does.

[TrueBlueGED]

As this discussion has shifted to motivations for this heinous crime, I am disappointed that the surviving brother is not being considered an enemy combatant but rather getting put into the normal criminal justice system.

 

If he and his brother were acting alone or merely off information they gleaned from the internet, that's fine. Use the evidence on hand before interrogating him upon his return to the normal criminal justice system. (It appears that there is a strong criminal case currently against this man and any info gleaned from being outside the criminal justice system should not be used against him within it.) But if he was acting as part of a larger organization, we'd be much further ahead in stopping the next attack if we had the intelligence that should be gathered.

 

I completely understand what you're saying about intelligence which can be used to prevent future attacks...but he's still an American citizen, living within the United States. That has to count for something.

[Taro T]

I completely understand what you're saying about intelligence which can be used to prevent future attacks...but he's still an American citizen, living within the United States. That has to count for something.

He is. And upon finding out whether there is actionable intelligence that can be obtained prior to his lawyer saying 'you don't have to answer that,' he should be returned to the criminal justice system. He shouldn't spend his days in Guantanamo waiting for a military tribunal; but if he is part of a larger conspiracy and that group's next attack also succeeds, I'd hate to think that it could have been readily prevented.

[LastPommerFan]

He is. And upon finding out whether there is actionable intelligence that can be obtained prior to his lawyer saying 'you don't have to answer that,' he should be returned to the criminal justice system. He shouldn't spend his days in Guantanamo waiting for a military tribunal; but if he is part of a larger conspiracy and that group's next attack also succeeds, I'd hate to think that it could have been readily prevented.

 

Isn't this exactly what the public safety exception to Miranda took care of? Or do you think the military is just better interrogators?

[Weave]

He is. And upon finding out whether there is actionable intelligence that can be obtained prior to his lawyer saying 'you don't have to answer that,' he should be returned to the criminal justice system. He shouldn't spend his days in Guantanamo waiting for a military tribunal; but if he is part of a larger conspiracy and that group's next attack also succeeds, I'd hate to think that it could have been readily prevented.

 

I have an extreme level of discomfort over the idea of treating this guy any differently than say Tim McVeigh. I do realize that there may be intelligence compromises that occur because of it, but dammit, he's an American citizen and he's innocent until proven guilty. Hell, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that this guy wasn't Mirandized.

[Taro T]

I have an extreme level of discomfort over the idea of treating this guy any differently than say Tim McVeigh. I do realize that there may be intelligence compromises that occur because of it, but dammit, he's an American citizen and he's innocent until proven guilty. Hell, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that this guy wasn't Mirandized.

I specifically stated that any information obtained while being treated as an enemy combatant should be excluded from his criminal trial. This isn't about whether or not he should spend his days behind bars - that is for the criminal justice system to decide. This is about finding out whether he & his brother were solo actors or not.

 

And for his criminal trial, if there is information that he gave out without his rights being protected - well that should be inadmissible.

 

And to answer LPF - I expect the CIA will do a much better job of interrogating him than the Boston PD will.

[K-9]

I have an extreme level of discomfort over the idea of treating this guy any differently than say Tim McVeigh. I do realize that there may be intelligence compromises that occur because of it, but dammit, he's an American citizen and he's innocent until proven guilty. Hell, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that this guy wasn't Mirandized.

 

All of us that hold the Constitution as that which makes ours the greatest democracy the world has ever known, should be just as uncomfortable. I'm amazed at the rhetoric I'm hearing out there. The same talking heads so quick to tout the sanctity of our 2nd amendment rights, are even more willing to trample on others even more important to our society.

 

I specifically stated that any information obtained while being treated as an enemy combatant should be excluded from his criminal trial. This isn't about whether or not he should spend his days behind bars - that is for the criminal justice system to decide. This is about finding out whether he & his brother were solo actors or not.

 

And for his criminal trial, if there is information that he gave out without his rights being protected - well that should be inadmissible.

 

And to answer LPF - I expect the CIA will do a much better job of interrogating him than the Boston PD will.

 

The FBI can handle it just as effectively.

[LastPommerFan]

And to answer LPF - I expect the CIA will do a much better job of interrogating him than the Boston PD will.

 

I'm assuming it was the FBI (CIA not allowed to work domestically by law) that interrogated him prior to his being Mirandized.

[Taro T]

All of us that hold the Constitution as that which makes ours the greatest democracy the world has ever known, should be just as uncomfortable. I'm amazed at the rhetoric I'm hearing out there. The same talking heads so quick to tout the sanctity of our 2nd amendment rights, are even more willing to trample on others even more important to our society.

 

What 'talking heads' are germane to this discussion?

 

The FBI can handle it just as effectively.

Not if his lawyer is sitting there telling him 'you don't have to answer that.' Again, I specifically stated that any information obtained from him as a function of national defense should NOT be included in any criminal (or civil, for that matter) trials that come about due to the bombing.

[LastPommerFan]

Not if his lawyer is sitting there telling him 'you don't have to answer that.' Again, I specifically stated that any information obtained from him as a function of national defense should NOT be included in any criminal (or civil, for that matter) trials that come about due to the bombing.

 

The FBI interrogated him WITHOUT his Lawyer.

[Eleven]

I have an extreme level of discomfort over the idea of treating this guy any differently than say Tim McVeigh. I do realize that there may be intelligence compromises that occur because of it, but dammit, he's an American citizen and he's innocent until proven guilty. Hell, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that this guy wasn't Mirandized.

 

The government does not have to Mirandize a suspect in any situation, ever. However, evidence obtained before the warning is given is inadmissible (generally).

 

The FBI interrogated him WITHOUT his Lawyer.

 

See above...

[Weave]

I specifically stated that any information obtained while being treated as an enemy combatant should be excluded from his criminal trial. This isn't about whether or not he should spend his days behind bars - that is for the criminal justice system to decide. This is about finding out whether he & his brother were solo actors or not.

 

And for his criminal trial, if there is information that he gave out without his rights being protected - well that should be inadmissible.

 

And to answer LPF - I expect the CIA will do a much better job of interrogating him than the Boston PD will.

 

I don't care if you want to make that evidence inadmissible. He is a civilian criminal SUSPECT. He should be treated like a civilian criminal suspect, which requires the presumption of innocence in any proceedings with him. Nowhere in there do I find interrogation at the hands of the military or CIA something that should be done with any civilian criminal suspect.

 

The government does not have to Mirandize a suspect in any situation, ever. However, evidence obtained before the warning is given is inadmissible (generally).

 

 

 

See above...

 

I know. I am greatly uncomfortable with that idea though. I understand why it exists. I choose to be uncomfortable with it on principle.

[Eleven]

I don't care if you want to make that evidence inadmissible. He is a civilian criminal SUSPECT. He should be treated like a civilian criminal suspect, which requires the presumption of innocence in any proceedings with him. Nowhere in there do I find interrogation at the hands of the military or CIA something that should be done with any civilian criminal suspect.

 

Agreed with respect to the military. I believe that the CIA does interrogate civilians.

[Taro T]

The FBI interrogated him WITHOUT his Lawyer.

 

They didn't have access to him for very long and they were under extreme duress in their situation. He could and should be returned to the criminal justice system after being interrogated by interrogators that aren't under duress.

 

I don't care if you want to make that evidence inadmissible. He is a civilian criminal SUSPECT. He should be treated like a civilian criminal suspect, which requires the presumption of innocence in any proceedings with him. Nowhere in there do I find interrogation at the hands of the military or CIA something that should be done with any civilian criminal suspect.

 

 

 

I know. I am greatly uncomfortable with that idea though. I understand why it exists. I choose to be uncomfortable with it on principle.

I have misgivings about this as well. This issue brings up a slew of really gray areas IMHO.

 

But he didn't just commit a criminal act, he committed an act of war. If he was acting in concert with a larger group, we need to know that.

[nfreeman]

nFreeman, your position is reasonable, It is when it is combined with billy's comments that the religion itself is at it's core the source of the violence, that genocide comes into the equation. People are smart enough not to get to close to suggesting that, but the combination of the idea that violence against our enemies is appropriate and that our enemy is the entire religion of Islam is not terrible out of place with what Swamp was alluding to. Billy was basically saying that as long as there is Islam, it will be violent to the west because that is what the faith is all about. There is only one place that thinking leads.

 

That is what he said, and I didn't like that part of his post either. I've seen others make that point and on that issue I agree with the moral equivalence approach (i.e. that Islam is no more or no less inherently violent than most other religions).

 

But I was OK with the following:

 

But as an objective observer of world affairs, it is apparent that one is currently far more dangerous than the others. The solution is quite complicated and nuanced and shouldn't involve invading every Muslim-majority country around the globe. But to deny or even downplay the actual problem - that Islam and Sharia law is a threat to Western civilization (Europe much more so than the US) - is foolish.

 

 

I think it's fair to interpret this part of the post as "let's be realistic about what's going on in the world right now." And those who are accusing others here of promoting genocide should note that Billy F clearly says that invading every Muslim country is not the right (and obviously not the final) solution.

 

Most importantly, I don't think that Islam in the abstract, on a theological level, is inherently any more dangerous or violent than any other religion. But we shouldn't pretend that there aren't a significant number of Muslims -- and many more, at this point in history, than members of any other religion -- committing atrocities around the world in the name (however misplaced) of Islam.

 

As this discussion has shifted to motivations for this heinous crime, I am disappointed that the surviving brother is not being considered an enemy combatant but rather getting put into the normal criminal justice system.

 

If he and his brother were acting alone or merely off information they gleaned from the internet, that's fine. Use the evidence on hand before interrogating him upon his return to the normal criminal justice system. (It appears that there is a strong criminal case currently against this man and any info gleaned from being outside the criminal justice system should not be used against him within it.) But if he was acting as part of a larger organization, we'd be much further ahead in stopping the next attack if we had the intelligence that should be gathered.

The whole enemy combatant issue is pretty interesting, IMHO. We are here squarely faced with the question of whether a US citizen can be categorized as such.

 

Without having given it much thought, my initial reaction is to agree with you -- none of it should be admissible for purposes of his criminal trial, but it should be OK to waterboard him and Gitmo him, under the supervision of a military judge or similar oversight, for so long as there is reason to believe we can get intelligence out of him.

 

I have an extreme level of discomfort over the idea of treating this guy any differently than say Tim McVeigh. I do realize that there may be intelligence compromises that occur because of it, but dammit, he's an American citizen and he's innocent until proven guilty. Hell, I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that this guy wasn't Mirandized.

 

There is a key difference between this and Tim McVeigh (what a great Buffalonian he was). TM wasn't part of a group that had declared war on the US and carried out repeated attacks in the name of that war.

 

bold 1 - It's not as far as you seem to think.

 

bold 2 - and using force has been effective up til now?

 

Look, I understand that you have to smack your kid on the ass to get him to behave, but maybe he wouldn't be acting out if dad wasn't doing lines off of his passed out girlfreind's stomach.

 

Over one hundred thousand Muslims have been killed since we invaded Iraq. With every speech by the president(s) or generals ending with "God bless America", you might not think we are fighting a holy war, but I'm sure a Muslim over there does.

 

Well, if you believe in moral equivalence and accusing those who disagree with you of promoting genocide, then we are pretty far apart and going to stay that way. But we shouldn't ignore the fact that in the last 12 years -- during which the fight has been forcefully taken to the enemy -- there have been exactly 2 successful terrorist attacks on US soil -- and it hasn't been for any lack of desire on the part of the enemy. So perhaps using force has been effective.

 

Isn't this exactly what the public safety exception to Miranda took care of? Or do you think the military is just better interrogators?

 

The public safety exception has a built-in time limit, which effectively denatures it in this context, because the bad guys know that they just have to keep quiet for a limited period until Miranda kicks in.

 

I get that people want things to fit, but that's the problem. If you go into a situation thinking you know WHY something is the way it is then you'll be less likely to look at facts objectively and you'll seek the answers that fit your point of view. This is just how most people are but it's unfortunate.

 

You clearly want these to be two kids who were putting forth the effort to spread the disease of religious extremism. I'm not arguing that they weren't Muslim and that they didn't somehow associate themselves with the terrorist movement from their point of view. However, it's a distinct difference for them to be acting out on their own accord rather than being part of an overall controlled attack directed from one of the primary factions.

 

If I were to go out tomorrow and commit an act of violence on behalf of some movement that I suddenly found myself believing in without any communication with that movement would you consider it part of the movement's actions? It's almost as absurd as people labeling the Tea Party as racist because of a few statements from some ignorant people who happen to also be part of the Tea Party. Some guy pretends he hears God's voice and that people must be cleansed and goes on a killing spree... who do we blame?

 

And I'm sorry, but it's far more complex than you want it to be. Clearly all Muslims of the world are not sitting around trying to kill all the people who do not agree with them. Why is that? So, to state that a religion is to blame is absurd. I'll be right there with you to proclaim that extremism is to blame.

 

Extremism prohibits a lack of rational thought. It's a bad situation to be in regardless of the subject matter. We see shades of that on this board every day when we discuss some aspects of the Sabres. The purposes behind extremism can be widespread and this will lead to all sorts of homegrown bloodthirsty militants living among us, Islamic or not.

 

All I can say is that while I generally respect your opinions as expressed here generally, I believe you are wrong about this -- both as to the underlying moral equivalence approach you seem to be taking and as to your assertions about my state of mind. I felt justified in connecting the dots on these guys based on the facts that had emerged -- even before the younger one told the Feds that they did it to further Islamic causes. If you look at those facts, I don't see how you can arrive at a different conclusion, or determine that my conclusion was unreasonable.

[Eleven]

Taro, when does it become an act of war? Where do you draw the line?

[wjag]

Is it possible that strong case = criminal court, weak case = tribunal? Could it be that simple?

[Eleven]

Is it possible that strong case = criminal court, weak case = tribunal? Could it be that simple?

 

It shouldn't be. That's exactly what our system is designed to prevent.

[MattPie]

Taro, when does it become an act of war? Where do you draw the line?

 

The pithy answer would be when there's a declaration of war by Congress.

 

We have to be careful here though, since all of this is lines. These guys blew up a number of people. The guy in Aurora killed a number of people. Are both terrorism? Does the weapon matter? If jilted lover goes and shoots up a bar where his crush is and kills 10 people? What if he stabs 5 people?

 

I'd prefer to keep it black and white: American suspects, American jurisdiction, American victims (mostly), American courts. Anything else is slippery.

 

BTW, I do like the subtle Miranda argument you're pointing out.