Boston Marathon attack

[canuck]

http://activelydisengaged.com/actively-disengaged-68-thunderous-applause/

Hello Bluenote: You sound like a knowledgeable kind of man, do you think the response to the Boston Bombing was handled properly and what would you suggest would be measures to prevent something like this happening again? Or is it just about impossible to know everything about all the 'radicals' who are wandering around freely in the US even with all the various 'listening' stations (which I presume is what the FBI does) for 'flagged' words etc.?

I see also that you are not in favour of any of the parties, what would be your choice of government as anarchism really wouldn't be any improvement if you think all the parties are equally bad.

 

[Bluenote]

I'll pass thanks.

Of course you will.

 

[SFG75]

I see also that you are not in favour of any of the parties, what would be your choice of government as anarchism really wouldn't be any improvement if you think all the parties are equally bad.

Having read and re-read some portions of this thread the past two days, I'm just now struck by how stridently partisan the Americans are on this forum, while our friends across ye olde pond are less forward with their politics. Obviously, you'll encounter republicans, libertarians, or democrats here, but I have yet to hear from someone who loudly proclaims God and country through a labour or conservative viewpoint. Perhaps folks aren't as direct in other nations, I don't know. Just something that has struck me as kind of interesting.

As the old song goes: "Let's talk about anything you want......except politics, religion, and her."

 

[Peder]

Well there you have it.

Thanks, Sparky, for all of that. Was just looking at that myself. Section 921 seems clear enough. It was the reference to other clauses above that stopped me in my tracks. It looks like explosive bombs just make it (with one specific mention), although I wish I knew what their explosive power was; because the number of ounces of "propellant" given (to qualify as WMD) sounds sort of small but WDIK. Otherwise WMD seems to be mainly CBN, which would not cover the current situation. Lawyers, if any here, might choose to clarify.

 

[Peder]

Having read and re-read some portions of this thread the past two days, I'm just now struck by how stridently partisan the Americans are on this forum, while our friends across ye olde pond are less forward with their politics. Obviously, you'll encounter republicans, libertarians, or democrats here, but I have yet to hear from someone who loudly proclaims God and country through a labour or conservative viewpoint. Perhaps folks aren't as direct in other nations, I don't know. Just something that has struck me as kind of interesting.

As the old song goes: "Let's talk about anything you want......except politics, religion, and her."

You bet, SFG, complicated by the fact that, in my forum experience, "liberal" and "democracy" seem to have different meanings here than there, and the wrong one had best not be used with the wrong person.

re lack of God, no comment.

So the old song is still a good one, IMO.

 

[Meadow337]

I'm all for separation of church and state for any number of reasons, not the least being that God seems to bring out the narrow minded crazy in folks of all persuasions. The responsibilities of the state towards all citizens of all faiths, creeds, beliefs and persuasions is fundamentally at odds with the demands of religion to follow a certain path (whatever that path may be).

 

[Landslide]

Having read and re-read some portions of this thread the past two days, I'm just now struck by how stridently partisan the Americans are on this forum, while our friends across ye olde pond are less forward with their politics. Obviously, you'll encounter republicans, libertarians, or democrats here, but I have yet to hear from someone who loudly proclaims God and country through a labour or conservative viewpoint. Perhaps folks aren't as direct in other nations, I don't know. Just something that has struck me as kind of interesting.

As the old song goes: "Let's talk about anything you want......except politics, religion, and her."

I can only talk about Portugal, but we do tend to keep state and religion separated. Of course our more conservative parties are also the ones most associated with religious principles, but they know better than to try and bring God to their political speeches.

Oh, and when I speak of religion here, I'm refering to the Catholic religion, since it's the main religion in Portugal.

 

[canuck]

Really interesting posts. I belong to another forum and from what I understand every person on it is a Republican, haven't seen any posts otherwise. They love their guns and some of them have no qualms on speaking about God and religion. It is completely one-sided and is really quite remarkable for its fervour. A bit scary at times too - I wonder if it would be less strident if the Republicans were in power or would they get ticked off with them too. Anyway, sort of wandering off the subject here which is about the Boston Bomb attack. Wondering how the injured people are faring in getting back to a semblance of normal for those whose injuries weren't as serious as the ones who lost limbs. It was a terrible and cowardly attack.

 

[pontalba]

The emotional aspect only apply to those that use weapons not the weapons themselves, otherwise the whole of humanity becomes WMD. A truism certainly but fundamentally useless.

Of course. that goes without saying. It was for the human part of the equation I was speaking. Naturally I was not referring to the weapons themselves.

Thanks, Sparkchaser, for putting up the post with the actual rules and regs. Most informative.

 

[Peder]

I remember a post above which claimed authoritatively that the devices used in Boston were properly called IEDs. Since the code is so specific about the crime being use of a WMD (as defined further in the code), I wonder whether IEDs are about to be re-labeled as WMDs or, alternatively, whether the accused is going to prove to be innocent of the WMD charge.

Were the airplanes involved in the 9-11 attacks WMDs per law? They caused much greater destruction than the Marathon Bombers.

Murky waters. In what appears to me to be a very murkily worded statute.

Just asking. Posing further questions for any lawyer here.

 

[Conscious Bob]

Section 921 lists the US civil defence definitions which is why they're separate.

 

[Peder]

Section 921 lists the US civil defence definitions which is why they're separate.

I don't quite understand. Evidently I am still missing something.

Section 921 is nevertheless the relevant section cited for definitions of WMDs, isn't it?

 

[Conscious Bob]

I've alluded to this before replying to Bluenote. The US Military and US Civil Defence have different definitions of what WMD is.

 

[Peder]

I've alluded to this before replying to Bluenote. The US Military and US Civil Defence have different definitions of what WMD is.

Yes. And, as I understand the transcript of the Federal charge, he was charged under 2332 with use of WMDs, with definition of WMD from 921.
If I missed that I'll go back and read your discussion with Bluenote. Sorry to have bothered you with a repetitive question.

 

[Meadow337]

Charles Weisselberg, a UC Berkeley law professor, said the Miranda decision stands mostly as a symbol for legal rights.

"Miranda provides very little protection for suspects," he said. "But it has become shorthand for saying: Are we going to treat him with the rights that we give people in the United States, or is he going to be treated as an enemy combatant with no rights?"

On Capitol Hill, critics of the administration say Tsarnaev should have been held as an enemy combatant and removed from the criminal justice system.

Forgive me but doesn't things like the Geneva Convention and any subsequent similar agreement give enemy combatants rights?

It is thinking like this that is most worrying. ALL human beings have rights, including criminals and enemy combatants, not the least being not to be falsely accused, detained without cause, tortured sorry questioned without legal representation etc.

I don't think we should view anything pertaining to rights as 'just a symbol'.

And then I read this statement:

A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule.

Doesn't this concern any one? No matter what you have done, under what law can they ignore a request for a lawyer?

 

[Conscious Bob]

Forgive me but doesn't things like the Geneva Convention and any subsequent similar agreement give enemy combatants rights?

It is thinking like this that is most worrying. ALL human beings have rights, including criminals and enemy combatants, not the least being not to be falsely accused, detained without cause, tortured sorry questioned without legal representation etc.

I don't think we should view anything pertaining to rights as 'just a symbol'.

And then I read this statement:



Doesn't this concern any one? No matter what you have done, under what law can they ignore a request for a lawyer?

Forgive me but doesn't things like the Geneva Convention and any subsequent similar agreement give enemy combatants rights?

They're not enemy combatants, they're people that have turned on their host nation and as such must face the penalty of law.

 

[Meadow337]

yes .... LAW and RIGHTS generally go hand in hand, you can't ignore either as you will because the law is getting in the way of your need for revenge, which I'm sorry to say seems to be a large component of a lot of the actions and rhetoric.

We stopped stringing people up from the nearest tree without trial some time ago in the interest of justice. Let's try not to go back there either in our thinking or actions.

 

[Conscious Bob]

yes .... LAW and RIGHTS generally go hand in hand, you can't ignore either as you will because the law is getting in the way of your need for revenge, which I'm sorry to say seems to be a large component of a lot of the actions and rhetoric.

Yes they do and Sparkchaser has posted up the relevant information. Do marathon runners have the right to finish a race without being blown up?

 

[Meadow337]

Yes they do and Sparkchaser has posted up the relevant information. Do marathon runners have the right to finish a race without being blown up?

Of course they do, but that doesn't give authorities the right to ignore the law, or express a desire to ignore the law when it doesn't fit in with their desires. If the law is wrong, change it, but don't ignore it.

 

[pontalba]

Yes they do and Sparkchaser has posted up the relevant information. Do marathon runners have the right to finish a race without being blown up?

That is exactly the point CB.....agreed.
When a person causes the death and destruction that those men caused, they give up a certain amount of their rights. It is the cost of living in a civilized society.

Talk about biting the hand that feeds you!