Boston Marathon Bombing

[Vertigo]

The father of the boys is claiming that they were framed and the "cops being cowards shot him, they're are cops like that." Good luck proving that one. The uncle seems to have the most the most common sense among them.

Yeah, most people who are framed throw IEDs out the window at cops as they're being chased.

On an side note, in listening to the uncle's interview he mentions that the two shitheads grew up in Kyrgyzstan, not Kazakhstan. Very different places.

I know a guy whose sister is #4 prostitute in whole of Kazakhstan.

I though they were resident aliens, not citizens?

I had also heard that there was plenty of evidence at their residence (explosives, similar devices, etc)

Someone please correct if I'm wrong.

Reports are saying they were granted citizenship along with asylum (although not at the same time). Guess it was domestic after all, Rokke. (KIDDING!)

Edited April 20, 2013 by Vertigo

[17D_guy]

I was a little disturbed by the interview on the news today with the rep from the US Attorney's Office. In summary, they haven't charged him yet (which I assume includes the reading of rights) because they don't want to charge him if they're not certain he did it. They want to talk to him first to find out if he did it, and they can't get a good confession yet since he's still in serious condition. Because of his condition, they don't need to charge him to 'detain' him as he can't leave the hospital anyway. They do plan to charge him, regardless, before he leaves the hospital though.

ETA: As much of a dirtbag as he probably is, and as much as I've already given whomever is proven to have done the bombing the death penalty in my own mind, if the guy is a US Citizen, he has the right to due process once captured.

I viewed this as, "He's not going anywhere for awhile, we'll just continue building the case. When he's cognizant and talking (call for a lawyer) we'll charge him."

I don't really have a problem with that. If he was in a cell, I would.

Edited April 20, 2013 by 17D_guy

[Guest CannonCrashPad]

The enemy combatant thing is bullshit and much scarier to me than any of the gun control stuff going on lately.

I remember a time when the right of an American citizen to a trial and a jury of peers, was black and white and everybody across the spectrum understood it. Now we have folks like Senator Graham very vocally claiming that America is a battleground, and that these constitutional rights need to be ignored. America is a battle ground and we need drones and more weapons of warfare in America, and less (or no) due process. When I think of the America as a battlefield world that Graham says is the reality, I can't help but picture the premise of the movie below.

ETA: I give up trying to embed this video.

Good words from a constitutional lawyer, Glenn Greenwald, who explains how this administration has redefined "public safety exception" law, much as it has redefined "imminent threat" in DOJ whitepapers: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights

Edited April 21, 2013 by Toro
Fixed video

[matmacwc]

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

Don't worry your little head about due process....

[Guest CannonCrashPad]

http://www.fbi.gov/s...11/legal_digest

Don't worry your little head about due process....

Being read rights or not is the least of my concern.

[Homestar]

It's okay. The kid was the recipient of the quality American school system. I'm sure he knows that he has the right to remain silent.

[kack911]

I'll be the first to admit that I'm dense, but what's the BFD about not reading him his rights?

Mirandizing someone doesn't magically confer any rights to the individual; it simply advises one of his rights. If LE isn't concerned about the admissibility of his statements in a court of law, then it doesn't f'n matter if they read him his rights or not.

I don't think we need dickface's confession, so who cares? Seriously?

I remember a time when the right of an American citizen to a trial and a jury of peers, was black and white and everybody across the spectrum understood it.

I remember a time when mother######ers didn't move to America, get subsidized education at prestigious schools, become naturalized citizens, and then blow up American civilians in the name of Allah.

He willingly forfeited his Consititutional rights as an American when he dropped that IED at an 8 year old kid's feet.

[BitteEinBit]

blah blah....Plus, I've seen "combat" zones in Afghanistan with less firepower allocated to them than what we sent after a single teenager. I don't think we're asking the right questions here.

Yeah, we should have tried just talking to these young men....maybe offer them some ice cream and they surely would have put down their guns.

And we need tougher pressure cooker laws....if we had more restrictions on the purchase of pressure cookers and ball bearings, none of this would have happened!

(I know, that argument sounds ridiculous doesn't it....imagine that)

[AnimalMother]

He willingly forfeited his Consititutional rights as an American when he dropped that IED at an 8 year old kid's feet.

This is one of the most frightening statements I have read in a long while-at every level. We as military officers and Americans ought to have a better understanding of how the Constitution came about and why the Bill of Rights is so revolutionary. At this rate, why should we even bother having a trial? He's already been found guilty in the media. Seig Heil?

Yeah, we should have tried just talking to these young men....maybe offer them some ice cream and they surely would have put down their guns.

And we need tougher pressure cooker laws....if we had more restrictions on the purchase of pressure cookers and ball bearings, none of this would have happened!

(I know, that argument sounds ridiculous doesn't it....imagine that)

I think your witness testimony is required elsewhere.

Edited April 21, 2013 by AnimalMother

[BitteEinBit]

We as military officers and Americans ought to have a better understanding of how the Constitution came about and why the Bill of Rights is so revolutionary. At this rate, why should we even bother having a trial?

I think your witness testimony is required elsewhere.

What? You mean I don't have the constitutional right to free speech here? Or is it only when you don't agree? I'm just asking....as a military officer and American and all....I just want to understand.

[kack911]

This is one of the most frightening statements I have read in a long while-at every level. We as military officers and Americans ought to have a better understanding of how the Constitution came about and why the Bill of Rights is so revolutionary. At this rate, why should we even bother having a trial? He's already been found guilty in the media. Seig Heil?

You might want to take a look at the rules governing the denaturalization process. Membership in subversive groups such as al-Qaeda or Caucasus Emirate, or failing to testify regarding suspected subversive activities is grounds for USCIS to revoke one's naturalization.

So perhaps you should drop the faux-outrage and gain a better understanding of immigration law. I recommend you start with 8 U.S.C. § 1451 which states, in part:

"If a person who shall have been naturalized after December 24, 1952 shall within five years next following such naturalization become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization under the provisions of section 1424 of this title, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship..."

Now, maybe the "within five years" part will be his saving grace, but that doesn't change the fact that naturalized citizens can indeed have their citizenship revoked for gross buffoonery.

Edited to add the citation.

Edited April 21, 2013 by kack911

[AnimalMother]

You might want to take a look at the rules governing the denaturalization process. Membership in subversive groups such as al-Qaeda or Caucasus Emirate, or failing to testify regarding suspected subversive activities is grounds for USCIS to revoke one's naturalization.

So perhaps you should drop the faux-outrage and gain a better understanding of immigration law. I recommend you start with 8 U.S.C. § 1451 which states, in part:

"If a person who shall have been naturalized after December 24, 1952 shall within five years next following such naturalization become a member of or affiliated with any organization, membership in or affiliation with which at the time of naturalization would have precluded such person from naturalization under the provisions of section 1424 of this title, it shall be considered prima facie evidence that such person was not attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States and was not well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States at the time of naturalization, and, in the absence of countervailing evidence, it shall be sufficient in the proper proceeding to authorize the revocation and setting aside of the order admitting such person to citizenship..."

Now, maybe the "within five years" part will be his saving grace, but that doesn't change the fact naturalized citizens can indeed have their citizenship revoked for gross bufoonery.

Edited to add the citation.

Thanks for the citation, I obviously needed that. At any rate, the disconnect between us is that you seem to hang your hat on modern political law, I prefer old fashioned common law-which was used as the basis for our Constitution and, for that matter, our country. I have plenty of good reads, PM me if you are interested. If not, you might start with "Three Felonies A Day" by Harvey Silvergate.

And I assure you that my dismay is genuine, but it's equally divided between recent events and the unconscionable reactions of so many Americans. But, then again, I guess that's why there's a bell curve.

[Fuzz]

you still have to prove in a court of law that said person is associated with groups and therefore should have their citizenship revoked. Also Im not sure how legally kosher it is to revoke someones citizenship and rights after they committed a crime and then you prive they belonged to a group. Its called due process and no matter how despicable his crime he was apprehended here in America not on a foreign battle field (if that were the case you have a shot at the enemy combatant angle).

I hate this bastard as much as the next person, but the legal system is in place to protect you and I from hasty public opinion courts. This man will face justice but let's do it the right way and not make exceptions because if not, one day you might wrongly find yourself facing an "exception".

Edited April 21, 2013 by Fuzz

[Guest CannonCrashPad]

Yeah, citizenship can't be revoked in order to avoid due process after a crime has been committed. Will be interesting to see how this American citizen is treated. I'm guessing not getting read his Miranda Rights might have something to do with

by a group comprised of retired flag officers and legislators.

I'm guessing he's not going to see a court room. At least not a real court room. It's especially unfortunate given that we could give him the due process he is owed, and thereby preserve the rights of all Americans, and uphold the rule of law, and not violate our Constitution, and then kill him for his crimes once proven. But I'm guessing that option isn't going to be taken, and as a result of "questioning" without his Miranda Rights justified for an "immediate threat" that isn't there as required for the "public safety exception," they are gambling with the court process. After he is "questioned" without his lawyer, they will actually give him a chance to be found not guilty in court through their denial of his due process. That's why I don't think he'll ever see a court room now.

Seems like a strange choice to deny the rights of a citizen in such a slam dunk case. But another precedent will be set, and another basic bedrock American constitutional right will be destroyed.

Hopefully I'm wrong.

[M2]

Don't worry, the FBI will ensure the case against this individual will be clean; I've worked with them before, they know their shit.

[waveshaper]

I find the older brothers name of some historical interest, Tamerlan or the sword of Islam/the central asian conqueror. Its also been reported that he spent some time in the former Soviet state of Kurdistan.

[Masshole]

I find the older brothers name of some historical interest, Tamerlan or the sword of Islam/the central asian conqueror. Its also been reported that he spent some time in the former Soviet state of Kurdistan.

Kurdistan now? Or Kyrgyzstan? According to all of the information being thrown out there they have lived in every country from Armenia to Mongolia.

[M2]

Allegedly the two lived in Tokmok, Kyrgyzstan and Makhachkala, Dagestan in Russia before the family immigrated to the US in 2002.

Tamerlan traveled to Russia in January 2012 and visited the North Caucasus, including Dagestan and Chechnya.

Their mother claims the two were under FBI surveillance for several years...

[waveshaper]

Kurdistan now? Or Kyrgyzstan? According to all of the information being thrown out there they have lived in every country from Armenia to Mongolia.

Consider the source; http://newobserveronline.com/america-pays-the-price-once-again-for-supporting-israel-as-boston-bombers-identified-as-muslim-brothers-from-kyrgyzstan/

[HuggyU2]

Kurdistan now? Or Kyrgyzstan?

Kurdistan, Kyrgystan,... whatever works.

[Steve Davies]

Don't worry, the FBI will ensure the case against this individual will be clean; I've worked with them before, they know their shit.

The same FBI that investigated one of the suspects after a tip-off by a foreign government that he was a supporter of radical Islam?

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/2011-request-for-information-on-tamerlan-tsarnaev-from-foreign-government

[HeloDude]

The same FBI that investigated one of the suspects after a tip-off by a foreign government that he was a supporter of radical Islam?

http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/2011-request-for-information-on-tamerlan-tsarnaev-from-foreign-government

Don't worry, the federal government never gets anything wrong.

[joe1234]

Maybe I'm just really sad for anyone who calls themselves an American, and is so willing to throw their rights out the window in the name of security. I'm not talking about beefed up post 9/11 airport security. I'm talking about stripping away your rights as a citizen simply because people are scared. The very thought that I could be framed for a crime, and in the public hysteria that ensues, I get shipped off to GITMO is pretty fucked up.

It really sucks having to defend personal liberty every damn time some asshole sets off a bomb and demonstrates how insecure and afraid our people are of the freedoms that we enjoy. Yes, gun nuts, that extends to your right to own 50 anti-materiel sniper rifles as much as it extends to the right to free speech and due process.

[M2]

The same FBI that investigated one of the suspects after a tip-off by a foreign government that he was a supporter of radical Islam?

http://www.fbi.gov/n...eign-government

In this country, it's not against the law to be a supporter of radical Islam.

Plus, it appears they responded appropriately...

In response to this 2011 request, the FBI checked U.S. government databases and other information to look for such things as derogatory telephone communications, possible use of online sites associated with the promotion of radical activity, associations with other persons of interest, travel history and plans, and education history. The FBI also interviewed Tamerlan Tsarnaev and family members. The FBI did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign, and those results were provided to the foreign government in the summer of 2011. The FBI requested but did not receive more specific or additional information from the foreign government.

Since the Tsarnaev brothers hadn't committed any major crimes at that point, or even prior to the bombings, what do you actually expect the FBI to have arrested them for?

They don't have a "Pre-Crimes" unit or any "precogs" to predict what they were going to do. Plus, as everybody on here keeps hyping, they had "rights."

Lastly, considering how quickly they were identified and brought to justice, I think the FBI did a pretty good job. I'd like to hear how you think they could have done better given the circumstances...

[Fuzz]

Lastly, considering how quickly they were identified and brought to justice, I think the FBI did a pretty good job. I'd like to hear how you think they could have done better given the circumstances...

I don't blame the FBI, I'm sure they had probably way bigger fish to fry, we'll probably never know how many other similar attacks they stopped. Plus there are 300 million people in this country and this isn't minority report, this stuff is going to happen no matter how much we try to prevent it.