Twin Bomb Explosions Shatter Boston Marathon Finish Line

[chuckd]

My concern here has been the willingness to accept the abrogation of some very basic rights granted in the U.S. Constitution that this event has allowed. It was unnerving to watch police officials searching homes without a warrant and to curtail freedom of individual movement. . There is just cause when lives are at stake, but this was a house by house search with no indication that lives were in danger in those homes. I look on in amazement at Senator Graham who was steadfast in his opposition to the President's proposed gun licensing proposal on the grounds that it violated the U.S. constitution and yet he has no issue with the basic constitutional rights of the accused being circumvented and has actually encouraged such action.

The aftermath of the Boston murders has been a media circus, and it gives me the impression that the fears of the general public were fanned by the media and the government. The erosion of some basic civil liberties once taken for granted are justified in the name of the fight against terror. This event will provide lots of ammo for the zealots like Alex Jones et al and the extreme right wing that accuse the government of trampling over once fundamental rights of U.S. citizens. I have previously held such people in disdain and contempt, but I can now see why they have concerns.

Make no mistake, I believe the Boston murders to be wrong and horrific. It was wrong. However, the terrorists win when we are reduced to fear and allow our rights to be trampled on. My concern with the media promoted hysteria is that no one has questioned the ramification of the suspension of individual legal rights, even if only for a short time. A civilized society must be based upon the rule of law. That law must be reliable and cannot be twisted about when it is politically expedient. I wish to consider my society strong enough and possessing of moral values to the extent that the rule of law prevails tempered by compassion, and mercy.

The police don't need a warrant in an emergency. Link If people were home they probably got permission. Telling people to stay in their homes may or may not have been legal with no proof the perp was around, but it was prudent. No one was arrested for disobeying, which would trigger the court case.

They sure as heck didn't need a warrant to approach the boat in the back yard. They had probable cause and an immediate threat.

You're right this was horrific. It set a lot of things in motion, and job well done IMHO. We can have a friendly difference on this because I'm 100% pro liberty, but I see the emergency in action and waive it off. Killings and attempted killings were still taking place after the bombings, as long as the perps were on the loose.

Peace.

Unfortunately, there were a number of incidents involving disagreements with the police tactics. These will most likely not be reported in the mainstream press which has doubled as a cheerleader for the police response. The authorities did indeed have the right to do a stop and search of vehicles. One could argue, they had a duty to conduct a thorough search. I think they did. However, there are already a number of dissenting opinions in respect to the treatment of the 4th Amendment in the manhunt when it comes to the entry onto private property. There is a large segment of the US population that takes property rights has a holy right and it is to be expected that in the coming weeks, this vociferous group will speak out.

At the time that homes and property were being searched, there was no firm indication that a dangerous person was present, nor was there an emergency at the premises being entered. The fact that either you or I would have welcomed a "welfare check" or approve is irrelevant, as there are a great many people who would not.

In respect to the apprehension of the accused in the boat, the discovery came as the police were scaling down the manhunt and the home restriction lifted. The State Police helicopter was running low on fuel and police officers needed a break as many had been going since the night before. The police responded to a 911 call from the homeowner. As such, they did not need a warrant and were responding to a crime in progress - the trespass of a bloodied person. However, prior to this, the manner in which the police were approaching doors and kicking on them does not bode well for the respect of the 4th Amendment. It is a slippery slope when police agencies can act in such a manner. Not all police agencies have personnel capable of using good judgement.

It is fortunate that the FBI hostage unit was in command of the boat apprehension as it was its negotiator that arranged the surrender and took command of the arrest. Listening to the scanner, the local Boston cops were over juiced and had to be continually ordered to respect the perimeter, to stop lighting up the area and to hold fire. It is fortunate that as the police were swarming Watertown earlier in the day that no one was mistakenly shot.

For all we know the authorities could have had a judge present at the searches for him to sign search warrants on the spot.

The ACLU be hanged in this case.

[geriatrickid]

Until recently there were a lot of people on the left wing, who were sort of holding out some hope that this might be a white male bomber, another Timothy McVeigh. They would have preferred anything other than a Muslim. Now that it is confirmed that the Boston bomber is a Muslim, the spinners will be frantically trying to spin the story in a politically correct direction.

How do you propose that anyone try and spin this in a politically correct direction?

Yes, the older brother appears to have been a religious nutter, but the younger brother is something else.

According to his classmates from high school and university he was a regular, popular fun loving guy.

He just doesn't fit the description of a muslim zealot as, he was banging the broads , had several jewish friends, liked to party and displayed none of the nasty behaviours that the holy rollers do. I don't think religious belief can account for the younger brother's behaviour. There's something else.

[jamhar]

We all make choices in life. The apologists will say that the bombers were oppressed, but they were not. They were not repressed either, but they were conditioned by their culture and religion to do exactly what they did. However, behind all that conditioning was a choice. The choice was that they could have become Americans and lived a good life, but instead they chose to become Muslim terrorists.

Well said bro

Timothy McVeigh was a self described "patriotic" American. It can be argued that his culture and religion caused him to do exactly what he did.

I am not an apologist for the Boston murderers and I shed no tears over the death of the older brother who it seems was one nasty piece of business. However, it is simplistic to look for one single factor as the cause.

I fail to see how simplistic U's comments are, and what being a patriotic american has to do with U's comments.

You dont have to be a patriot to enjoy being in America, or being American. I can show you plenty in california

And I dont see how culture and religion can be disputed as a major factor for the personal decisions made by these two brothers.

Edited April 21, 2013 by jamhar

[theblether]

My concern here has been the willingness to accept the abrogation of some very basic rights granted in the U.S. Constitution that this event has allowed. It was unnerving to watch police officials searching homes without a warrant and to curtail freedom of individual movement. . There is just cause when lives are at stake, but this was a house by house search with no indication that lives were in danger in those homes. I look on in amazement at Senator Graham who was steadfast in his opposition to the President's proposed gun licensing proposal on the grounds that it violated the U.S. constitution and yet he has no issue with the basic constitutional rights of the accused being circumvented and has actually encouraged such action.

The aftermath of the Boston murders has been a media circus, and it gives me the impression that the fears of the general public were fanned by the media and the government. The erosion of some basic civil liberties once taken for granted are justified in the name of the fight against terror. This event will provide lots of ammo for the zealots like Alex Jones et al and the extreme right wing that accuse the government of trampling over once fundamental rights of U.S. citizens. I have previously held such people in disdain and contempt, but I can now see why they have concerns.

Make no mistake, I believe the Boston murders to be wrong and horrific. It was wrong. However, the terrorists win when we are reduced to fear and allow our rights to be trampled on. My concern with the media promoted hysteria is that no one has questioned the ramification of the suspension of individual legal rights, even if only for a short time. A civilized society must be based upon the rule of law. That law must be reliable and cannot be twisted about when it is politically expedient. I wish to consider my society strong enough and possessing of moral values to the extent that the rule of law prevails tempered by compassion, and mercy.

The police don't need a warrant in an emergency. Link If people were home they probably got permission. Telling people to stay in their homes may or may not have been legal with no proof the perp was around, but it was prudent. No one was arrested for disobeying, which would trigger the court case.

They sure as heck didn't need a warrant to approach the boat in the back yard. They had probable cause and an immediate threat.

You're right this was horrific. It set a lot of things in motion, and job well done IMHO. We can have a friendly difference on this because I'm 100% pro liberty, but I see the emergency in action and waive it off. Killings and attempted killings were still taking place after the bombings, as long as the perps were on the loose.

Peace.

Unfortunately, there were a number of incidents involving disagreements with the police tactics. These will most likely not be reported in the mainstream press which has doubled as a cheerleader for the police response. The authorities did indeed have the right to do a stop and search of vehicles. One could argue, they had a duty to conduct a thorough search. I think they did. However, there are already a number of dissenting opinions in respect to the treatment of the 4th Amendment in the manhunt when it comes to the entry onto private property. There is a large segment of the US population that takes property rights has a holy right and it is to be expected that in the coming weeks, this vociferous group will speak out.

At the time that homes and property were being searched, there was no firm indication that a dangerous person was present, nor was there an emergency at the premises being entered. The fact that either you or I would have welcomed a "welfare check" or approve is irrelevant, as there are a great many people who would not.

In respect to the apprehension of the accused in the boat, the discovery came as the police were scaling down the manhunt and the home restriction lifted. The State Police helicopter was running low on fuel and police officers needed a break as many had been going since the night before. The police responded to a 911 call from the homeowner. As such, they did not need a warrant and were responding to a crime in progress - the trespass of a bloodied person. However, prior to this, the manner in which the police were approaching doors and kicking on them does not bode well for the respect of the 4th Amendment. It is a slippery slope when police agencies can act in such a manner. Not all police agencies have personnel capable of using good judgement.

It is fortunate that the FBI hostage unit was in command of the boat apprehension as it was its negotiator that arranged the surrender and took command of the arrest. Listening to the scanner, the local Boston cops were over juiced and had to be continually ordered to respect the perimeter, to stop lighting up the area and to hold fire. It is fortunate that as the police were swarming Watertown earlier in the day that no one was mistakenly shot.

OK, points well taken. I need only to wait and see if there are official complaints including but not necessarily to courts about entry and search. I don't know, but I haven't heard of anyone saying their home was searched without permission, or that they object.

Also, I posted a Link above where it would be up to a judge to decide if the searches were an "emergency." My hunch, but I don't know, is that a judge would think it was.

We had a lot going on - the main bombing, a killed officer at a school, a carjacking, the running over in the street of the brother probably actually killing him, bombs being thrown at police in pursuit, lots of shots fired, worry about even more bombs including perhaps a vest bomb...

A murderous act was committed by Islamic terrorists on US soil. We.don't.put.up.with.that. We will find out who was behind this and get them.

I thought all of America was cheering that night. I was proud to be an American.

I still am.

It drives many of us bananas but the application of the law is there to prevent abuse by the police and law enforcement agencies.

On the one hand it's only right that the police should use every practical tactic to flush out terrorists on the run, however they must be held accountable for their actions, otherwise we'll end up with a couple of million Dirty Harry wannabies running about the place.

Good in fiction, a disaster in real life.

[Ulysses G.]

I don't think religious belief can account for the younger brother's behaviour. There's something else.

Being manipulated by big brother.

[Jingthing]

Suicide bombers show bravery. Acts don't have to be 100 percent cowardly or 100 percent brave. They can be a mix. Bottom line, it doesn't matter. Their actions are what matters and the results.

<deleted>? C'mon. As you well know, many of those suicide bombers are kids, or mentally disabled people. Often they are marginalized or depressed people carefully recruited by the terrorist organizations. I do not consider it an act of bravery to have someone explode in a crowd of civilians many of whom are children. The older brother that died strikes me as the typical bully type. Marginalized and blaming others for his failures and inadequacies. I think his uncle summed him up succinctly: Loser.

These guys weren't suicide bombers. I am sorry but some terrorists are brave people. Seeing their bravery doesn't imply any approval of them in any way. Just keeping it real.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Jingthing

[Steely Dan]

Until recently there were a lot of people on the left wing, who were sort of holding out some hope that this might be a white male bomber, another Timothy McVeigh. They would have preferred anything other than a Muslim. Now that it is confirmed that the Boston bomber is a Muslim, the spinners will be frantically trying to spin the story in a politically correct direction.

How do you propose that anyone try and spin this in a politically correct direction?

Yes, the older brother appears to have been a religious nutter, but the younger brother is something else.

According to his classmates from high school and university he was a regular, popular fun loving guy.

He just doesn't fit the description of a muslim zealot as, he was banging the broads , had several jewish friends, liked to party and displayed none of the nasty behaviours that the holy rollers do. I don't think religious belief can account for the younger brother's behaviour. There's something else.

The extremist Imams condone and even advocate for their number to assume the cover of western decadent culture and even act in a way that normally would be against Sharia law, as long as it was done in the furtherance of jihad. Therefore I wouldn't make any assumptions based on his apparent lifestyle.

[Ulysses G.]

We all make choices in life. The apologists will say that the bombers were oppressed, but they were not. They were not repressed either, but they were conditioned by their culture and religion to do exactly what they did. However, behind all that conditioning was a choice. The choice was that they could have become Americans and lived a good life, but instead they chose to become Muslim terrorists.

Well said bro

Timothy McVeigh was a self described "patriotic" American. It can be argued that his culture and religion caused him to do exactly what he did.

I am not an apologist for the Boston murderers and I shed no tears over the death of the older brother who it seems was one nasty piece of business. However, it is simplistic to look for one single factor as the cause.

I fail to see how simplistic U's comments are, and what being a patriotic american has to do with U's comments.

You dont have to be a patriot to enjoy being in America, or being American. I can show you plenty in california

And I dont see how culture and religion can be disputed as a major factor for the personal decisions made by these two brothers.

Timothy McVeigh was no patriot and no Christian. He was a believer in the Christian Identity movement which is a racist belief system based on the "Turner Diaries" that has little to do with traditional Christianity and wants to "purge" all minorities. He was nothing but a hateful murderer and his nutty ideology was the factor that drove him to do what he did.

Edited April 21, 2013 by Ulysses G.

[geriatrickid]

For all we know the authorities could have had a judge present at the searches for him to sign search warrants on the spot.

The ACLU be hanged in this case.

The U.S. Constitution is paramount and respect for the 4th Amendment is not an ACLU issue.

Surely, you can appreciate the implication of the events. The Bush administration said torture was acceptable. This position was repudiated, but torture occurred and the end result was not good for the USA. By the same token, the conduct of some personnel in Boston may have been over the top. This will come out in the coming weeks.. Do I agree with the heavy handed approach, somewhat as it sent a message to potential terrorists, but that doesn't mean I cannot see the dangerous implications, nor does it justify an erosion of the 4th Amendment.

This comment by an outside police commander sums it up;

When everything is wrapped up there the actions of police and officials will be disseminated and dissected by police services across North America. Some of what was done will be applauded and some will be categorized as learning experiences, he said. The reality is, he continued, you can almost always see a better way to do something when you look back on it.

Remember, the Brazilian that was shot dead on the London tube following the terror attacks in London? The argument given was that it was an emergency and the police were responding appropriately. That was a teachable moment as the President says. I think the police agencies in North America learnt from that mistake. One good thing about the western world is that police agencies still have to answer to the population they serve. I anticipate, that some teachable moments will come out of the Boston manhunt.

uld I have done better? No. Do I agree with the heavy handed approach, somewhat as it sent a message to potential terrorists, but that doesn't mean I cannot see the

[NeverSure]

Unfortunately, there were a number of incidents involving disagreements with the police tactics. These will most likely not be reported in the mainstream press which has doubled as a cheerleader for the police response. The authorities did indeed have the right to do a stop and search of vehicles. One could argue, they had a duty to conduct a thorough search. I think they did. However, there are already a number of dissenting opinions in respect to the treatment of the 4th Amendment in the manhunt when it comes to the entry onto private property. There is a large segment of the US population that takes property rights has a holy right and it is to be expected that in the coming weeks, this vociferous group will speak out.

At the time that homes and property were being searched, there was no firm indication that a dangerous person was present, nor was there an emergency at the premises being entered. The fact that either you or I would have welcomed a "welfare check" or approve is irrelevant, as there are a great many people who would not.

In respect to the apprehension of the accused in the boat, the discovery came as the police were scaling down the manhunt and the home restriction lifted. The State Police helicopter was running low on fuel and police officers needed a break as many had been going since the night before. The police responded to a 911 call from the homeowner. As such, they did not need a warrant and were responding to a crime in progress - the trespass of a bloodied person. However, prior to this, the manner in which the police were approaching doors and kicking on them does not bode well for the respect of the 4th Amendment. It is a slippery slope when police agencies can act in such a manner. Not all police agencies have personnel capable of using good judgement.

It is fortunate that the FBI hostage unit was in command of the boat apprehension as it was its negotiator that arranged the surrender and took command of the arrest. Listening to the scanner, the local Boston cops were over juiced and had to be continually ordered to respect the perimeter, to stop lighting up the area and to hold fire. It is fortunate that as the police were swarming Watertown earlier in the day that no one was mistakenly shot.

It drives many of us bananas but the application of the law is there to prevent abuse by the police and law enforcement agencies.

On the one hand it's only right that the police should use every practical tactic to flush out terrorists on the run, however they must be held accountable for their actions, otherwise we'll end up with a couple of million Dirty Harry wannabies running about the place.

Good in fiction, a disaster in real life.

No one has yet told me what laws were broken by law enforcement. What laws did they break? I posted a link showing that in an emergency they can do those searches. I've heard of no complaints by homeowners and if there are, the courts can sort it out. We discussed that if permission is given they can always search.

They didn't hurt any innocent bystanders that I'm aware of.

Considering the desperate search for a bomber who had thrown bombs at them while in pursuit, and who had run over and probably killed his own brother, they simply HAD to catch him.

[ZhouZhou]

An interesting angle on this tragedy. Will this help thaw the ice between the U.S. and Russia on so many issues now?

Boston bombings: a chance for U.S.-Russia cooperation

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin may have been tempted to tell U.S. President Barack Obama "I told you so" when U.S. officials blamed two ethnic Chechens for the Boston Marathon bombings.

He has long said the United States underestimates the security threat posed by Islamist militants inRussia's volatile North Caucasus, and has rejected criticism that Moscow's use of force in the region has been heavy-handed.

But the Kremlin leader has kept silent in public since Tamerlan Tsarnaev died after a shootout with police, and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, was captured after a manhunt in a Boston suburb. Both are ethnic Chechens who had been living in the United States.

Instead, he and Obama made positive statements about cooperation on counterterrorism in a phone conversation on Friday, suggesting both sides see an opportunity to improve strained relations between their countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombings-chance-u-russia-cooperation-000900613.html

The government that alerted the FBI to its security concerns has not been named. I would expect it to be Russia. Why won't anyone mention the country's name? Curious.

Putin called Obama to express his condolences, but it would be interesting to know just what else was said.

The Chinese government has been circumspect in its comments following the murder of one of its nationals. China has been facing a quasi Islamic insurgency of its own and has been condemned by the west and the USA in its approach. It will be interesting to see if the US tempers its public statements now.

China sees these "Islamic" insurgents similar as Thailand sees their insurgents in the south. They don't focus much on the fact that they are Muslims and nor blame that particular Abrahamic religion. To do so seems to be a typical Western approach.

So there would be not a Chinese "we told you so".

for Russia - i saw some comments on that Russian face book version were the comments tried to make fun out of the fact that the Chechen once were seen as "freedom fighters" by the US. But i don't think that the president Putin would talk like this on telephone with Obama.

[theblether]

Unfortunately, there were a number of incidents involving disagreements with the police tactics. These will most likely not be reported in the mainstream press which has doubled as a cheerleader for the police response. The authorities did indeed have the right to do a stop and search of vehicles. One could argue, they had a duty to conduct a thorough search. I think they did. However, there are already a number of dissenting opinions in respect to the treatment of the 4th Amendment in the manhunt when it comes to the entry onto private property. There is a large segment of the US population that takes property rights has a holy right and it is to be expected that in the coming weeks, this vociferous group will speak out.

At the time that homes and property were being searched, there was no firm indication that a dangerous person was present, nor was there an emergency at the premises being entered. The fact that either you or I would have welcomed a "welfare check" or approve is irrelevant, as there are a great many people who would not.

In respect to the apprehension of the accused in the boat, the discovery came as the police were scaling down the manhunt and the home restriction lifted. The State Police helicopter was running low on fuel and police officers needed a break as many had been going since the night before. The police responded to a 911 call from the homeowner. As such, they did not need a warrant and were responding to a crime in progress - the trespass of a bloodied person. However, prior to this, the manner in which the police were approaching doors and kicking on them does not bode well for the respect of the 4th Amendment. It is a slippery slope when police agencies can act in such a manner. Not all police agencies have personnel capable of using good judgement.

It is fortunate that the FBI hostage unit was in command of the boat apprehension as it was its negotiator that arranged the surrender and took command of the arrest. Listening to the scanner, the local Boston cops were over juiced and had to be continually ordered to respect the perimeter, to stop lighting up the area and to hold fire. It is fortunate that as the police were swarming Watertown earlier in the day that no one was mistakenly shot.

It drives many of us bananas but the application of the law is there to prevent abuse by the police and law enforcement agencies.

On the one hand it's only right that the police should use every practical tactic to flush out terrorists on the run, however they must be held accountable for their actions, otherwise we'll end up with a couple of million Dirty Harry wannabies running about the place.

Good in fiction, a disaster in real life.

No one has yet told me what laws were broken by law enforcement. What laws did they break? I posted a link showing that in an emergency they can do those searches. I've heard of no complaints by homeowners and if there are, the courts can sort it out. We discussed that if permission is given they can always search.

They didn't hurt any innocent bystanders that I'm aware of.

Considering the desperate search for a bomber who had thrown bombs at them while in pursuit, and who had run over and probably killed his own brother, they simply HAD to catch him.

I'm not aware of any laws that have been broken, I'm pretty sure that in the UK in the same situation the police could gain immediate access to any home if they reasonably suspected it was harbouring a fugitive or if a crime was taking place.

I would have thought that, with the city being in lock down while a terrorist was being hunted, there would have been some type of overarching law to allow law enforcement to enter premises, but I'm no expert on American law and no doubt I'm wrong.

The primary point that I'm making is that it is correct for the law enforcement agencies to be held accountable for their actions after the event.

[theblether]

An interesting angle on this tragedy. Will this help thaw the ice between the U.S. and Russia on so many issues now?

Boston bombings: a chance for U.S.-Russia cooperation

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin may have been tempted to tell U.S. President Barack Obama "I told you so" when U.S. officials blamed two ethnic Chechens for the Boston Marathon bombings.

He has long said the United States underestimates the security threat posed by Islamist militants inRussia's volatile North Caucasus, and has rejected criticism that Moscow's use of force in the region has been heavy-handed.

But the Kremlin leader has kept silent in public since Tamerlan Tsarnaev died after a shootout with police, and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, was captured after a manhunt in a Boston suburb. Both are ethnic Chechens who had been living in the United States.

Instead, he and Obama made positive statements about cooperation on counterterrorism in a phone conversation on Friday, suggesting both sides see an opportunity to improve strained relations between their countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombings-chance-u-russia-cooperation-000900613.html

The government that alerted the FBI to its security concerns has not been named. I would expect it to be Russia. Why won't anyone mention the country's name? Curious.

Putin called Obama to express his condolences, but it would be interesting to know just what else was said.

The Chinese government has been circumspect in its comments following the murder of one of its nationals. China has been facing a quasi Islamic insurgency of its own and has been condemned by the west and the USA in its approach. It will be interesting to see if the US tempers its public statements now.

China sees these "Islamic" insurgents similar as Thailand sees their insurgents in the south. They don't focus much on the fact that they are Muslims and nor blame that particular Abrahamic religion. To do so seems to be a typical Western approach.

So there would be not a Chinese "we told you so".

for Russia - i saw some comments on that Russian face book version were the comments tried to make fun out of the fact that the Chechen once were seen as "freedom fighters" by the US. But i don't think that the president Putin would talk like this on telephone with Obama.

Plus 1 re the Chinese......

Putin was genuinely flabbergasted at the approach of the West in regards to Chechnya, I remember him severely condemning the 9/11 attacks and asking for the West to recognize that Russia was facing the same level of carnage daily in Chechnya.

Lest we forget the calamity that befell the Moscow Theatre in 2002......have a look at this link.

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/news/international/Boston_suspects_bring_echo_of_Chechnyas_bloodshed.html?cid=35568534

[jamhar]

Edit, sorry the quotes are too messed up to save the post

Been there also dude.

But on a different note,

I for one, think that the suspects uncle deserves all my respect (whether he wants it or not! lol)

He's one of the rare muslim that has openly spoken out against other muslims (his nephews) and in favor of his country, the US. His disgust was palpable. I truly felt sorry for this man, who at least on the surface, looks to be the typical american regardless of religion, and just trying to lead a good life. He will also be ever stained by his nephews. My hope is the this stain on him is soluble somewhat and he will be able to move on. Probably not until well after the trial, however.

[transam]

Brain washed folk are not brave folk, they are brain washed, plain and simple. Any guy who wants to kill or maim children is not brave, he is a very weak person that can be mentally controlled by another.

Weak.

[keemapoot]

Edit, sorry the quotes are too messed up to save the post

Been there also dude.

But on a different note,

I for one, think that the suspects uncle deserves all my respect (whether he wants it or not! lol)

He's one of the rare muslim that has openly spoken out against other muslims (his nephews) and in favor of his country, the US. His disgust was palpable. I truly felt sorry for this man, who at least on the surface, looks to be the typical american regardless of religion, and just trying to lead a good life. He will also be ever stained by his nephews. My hope is the this stain on him is soluble somewhat and he will be able to move on. Probably not until well after the trial, however.

The Russian and global press have swarmed on Makhachkala and are interviewing anyone who knew the older brother, family, etc... Reports are that the older brother was even kicked out of the family home there for his radical islamist views. Lots of clutter now, but a portrait is emerging of a dominant older radical brother, a younger (failing in school) brother, and extreme views by the older one. As noted, the views of the living younger brother are a puzzle at this time. *He could just be a garden variety sociopath.

Edited April 21, 2013 by keemapoot

[Morden]

Until recently there were a lot of people on the left wing, who were sort of holding out some hope that this might be a white male bomber, another Timothy McVeigh. They would have preferred anything other than a Muslim. Now that it is confirmed that the Boston bomber is a Muslim, the spinners will be frantically trying to spin the story in a politically correct direction.

Really? Right wingers wanted them to be Muslims and left wingers wanted them to be white?

Come, come, old bean. I haven't noticed any political division amongst those interviewed on the box.

[Publicus]

keemapoot, on 21 Apr 2013 - 09:31, said:

F430murci, on 21 Apr 2013 - 08:48, said:

keemapoot, on 21 Apr 2013 - 08:25, said:

^Agreed high profile lawyers don't need the case, but with unique legal questions to be decided in the case, it is a chance to add to their fame and standing, and ultimately success in landing the whale clients who do have loads of cash to spend.

Tough one. Could cut both ways and be professional suicide if want to practice in Boston in future. Big difference in representing an American icon and celebrity accused of killing his lying cheating wife in a racially polarized and charged community like LA in the early 90s. As bad as it sounds, some probably thought and still thinks she deserved it. LA racially motivated mentality. I guess a Boston lawyer looking to build a client base of Islamist might take case, I sure wouldn't.

Your points are well taken. Some additional points:

First, before any lawyer who might want to take this case would come forward, the little brother would have to walk out of the hospital, so to speak. No calculating lawyer is going to come forward at this point given that he might find himself out on a limb, i.e., a deceased client and no actual lawyering to be done.

If little bro survives and does go to trial, the family would be ill advised to accept or solicit the "services" of a mob lawyer. One could say a mob lawyer is familiar with a kind of terrorism as practiced by the mob in its daily malevolence - a kind of constant fear of suddenly getting "whacked" - but the kid having a mob lawyer would further aggravate public opinion, as if we're not already 100% hostile towards the two brothers.

I'm sure you're well aware history also shows us that extremely high profile media circus cases make bad law. The country needs the best possible decisions of law to emanate from his case. There are important issues of law to be decided in this case.

Indeed, many forumists have pointed out myriad questions of government authority and the orders of public officials, from the governor on through to the police chiefs, e.g. entering and searching every home, shutting down an entire metropolitan area to find one or two terrorists, the Miranda rights law as applied to a terrorism emergency, etc. A team of ACLU lawyers might be better in respect to the issues of law, but I'm not sure a focus on addressing issues of law would directly provide the best defense the defendant is entitled to under the constitution.

The last thing the kid needs is an Islamic Clarence Darrow to argue this case. Islam is in deep enough already without that, and would only go in deeper if such an approach were to be taken, i.e. defending or trying to explain Islam relative to terrorists and terrorism.

The judge in the case will have to be strong, sharp, clear. Individually, I'm more comfortable the case will be tried in a U.S. District Court rather than in the state judicial system. I've nothing in particular against state court judged in general, it's just that I believe a seasoned and well qualified federal judge could control the case and the courtroom both more effectively and more judicially given the issues at hand, from the standpoint of the law, to criminal acts committed by the brothers, to the emotions and beliefs of a religious nature that would attend this case.

State prosecutors are notoriously poor practicing criminal lawyers in such high profile cases. The current, still new Manhattan DA Cy Vance Jr and his office blew the DSC criminal case, which in civil court was settled without a trial to the satisfaction of all parties, the plaintiff hotel maid especially.

O.J. also got his comeuppance in a civil case after the state prosecutors blew the criminal case. U.S. attorney's office lawyers are known to give the attention to the details of the law and the case with a professional competence several notches above state prosecutors. Before Rudy Guilliani was elected mayor of NYC, he was the U.S. Attorney who with his legal team finally got John Gotti, the "Teflon Don."

I know I'd want to hear the defendant present in detail the whole of his experience in this awful mess. Getting that would require an exceptional approach to the matters of law, the policy issues for lawmakers and enforcers of the law, the question of radical Islam and the many other central factors that are relevant and material to the litigation and their consequence to us individually and as a society.

I never practiced criminal law so not sure what might motivate these guys. Seems to me someone specializing in defending big mob figures, or other high profile criminal defendants with cash might be tempted just for the vast exposure. I agree any practicing lawyer from Boston who took it might just as well go out and buy a fast food franchise ahead of time.

[chuckd]

Until recently there were a lot of people on the left wing, who were sort of holding out some hope that this might be a white male bomber, another Timothy McVeigh. They would have preferred anything other than a Muslim. Now that it is confirmed that the Boston bomber is a Muslim, the spinners will be frantically trying to spin the story in a politically correct direction.

How do you propose that anyone try and spin this in a politically correct direction?

Yes, the older brother appears to have been a religious nutter, but the younger brother is something else.

According to his classmates from high school and university he was a regular, popular fun loving guy.

He just doesn't fit the description of a muslim zealot as, he was banging the broads , had several jewish friends, liked to party and displayed none of the nasty behaviours that the holy rollers do. I don't think religious belief can account for the younger brother's behaviour. There's something else.

Apparently this fun loving regular guy was busy tweeting Islamic quotations from a Zimbabwean Mufti during his period of hiding from the police.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had time to tweet on the run

BY DEBORAH HASTINGS / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 2013, 5:33 PM

Between planting bombs and being on the lam, he somehow found time to tweet.

Boston bombing “Suspect 2,” identified by police as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, took to Twitter about a dozen times since Monday’s deadly twin blasts killed three people and injured more than 180 others.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boston-marathon-bombing-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-tweets-run-article-1.1322163#ixzz2R4fOBPIX

[ZhouZhou]

Edit, sorry the quotes are too messed up to save the post

Been there also dude.

But on a different note,

I for one, think that the suspects uncle deserves all my respect (whether he wants it or not! lol)

He's one of the rare muslim that has openly spoken out against other muslims (his nephews) and in favor of his country, the US. His disgust was palpable. I truly felt sorry for this man, who at least on the surface, looks to be the typical american regardless of religion, and just trying to lead a good life. He will also be ever stained by his nephews. My hope is the this stain on him is soluble somewhat and he will be able to move on. Probably not until well after the trial, however.

There was even a statement by some Pakistan taliban that they would not make such bombings.

I don't think that it is a RARE Muslim who think such bombings are not good.

[Scott]

I believe they said "they didn't do it"; not that they wouldn't do it. They also said something to the effect that they were committed to killing Americans whenever they could.

[ZhouZhou]

Until recently there were a lot of people on the left wing, who were sort of holding out some hope that this might be a white male bomber, another Timothy McVeigh. They would have preferred anything other than a Muslim. Now that it is confirmed that the Boston bomber is a Muslim, the spinners will be frantically trying to spin the story in a politically correct direction.

How do you propose that anyone try and spin this in a politically correct direction?

Yes, the older brother appears to have been a religious nutter, but the younger brother is something else.

According to his classmates from high school and university he was a regular, popular fun loving guy.

He just doesn't fit the description of a muslim zealot as, he was banging the broads , had several jewish friends, liked to party and displayed none of the nasty behaviours that the holy rollers do. I don't think religious belief can account for the younger brother's behaviour. There's something else.

Apparently this fun loving regular guy was busy tweeting Islamic quotations from a Zimbabwean Mufti during his period of hiding from the police.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev had time to tweet on the run

BY DEBORAH HASTINGS / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

FRIDAY, APRIL 19, 2013, 5:33 PM

Between planting bombs and being on the lam, he somehow found time to tweet.

Boston bombing “Suspect 2,” identified by police as Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, took to Twitter about a dozen times since Monday’s deadly twin blasts killed three people and injured more than 180 others.

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/boston-marathon-bombing-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-tweets-run-article-1.1322163#ixzz2R4fOBPIX

i like the expert quote on the end of the article

Social media expert Ken Anderson, who co-directs a University of Colorado at Boulder project that monitors social media during emergencies, has been documenting traffic about the Boston bombings.

“Social media is something that can be used to do good things — and something that can be used to do bad things.”

that sound so Zen wise.

[Publicus]

An interesting angle on this tragedy. Will this help thaw the ice between the U.S. and Russia on so many issues now?

Boston bombings: a chance for U.S.-Russia cooperation

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin may have been tempted to tell U.S. President Barack Obama "I told you so" when U.S. officials blamed two ethnic Chechens for the Boston Marathon bombings.

He has long said the United States underestimates the security threat posed by Islamist militants inRussia's volatile North Caucasus, and has rejected criticism that Moscow's use of force in the region has been heavy-handed.

But the Kremlin leader has kept silent in public since Tamerlan Tsarnaev died after a shootout with police, and his younger brother, Dzhokhar, was captured after a manhunt in a Boston suburb. Both are ethnic Chechens who had been living in the United States.

Instead, he and Obama made positive statements about cooperation on counterterrorism in a phone conversation on Friday, suggesting both sides see an opportunity to improve strained relations between their countries.

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bombings-chance-u-russia-cooperation-000900613.html

The government that alerted the FBI to its security concerns has not been named. I would expect it to be Russia. Why won't anyone mention the country's name? Curious.

Putin called Obama to express his condolences, but it would be interesting to know just what else was said.

The Chinese government has been circumspect in its comments following the murder of one of its nationals. China has been facing a quasi Islamic insurgency of its own and has been condemned by the west and the USA in its approach. It will be interesting to see if the US tempers its public statements now.

China sees these "Islamic" insurgents similar as Thailand sees their insurgents in the south. They don't focus much on the fact that they are Muslims and nor blame that particular Abrahamic religion. To do so seems to be a typical Western approach.

So there would be not a Chinese "we told you so".

for Russia - i saw some comments on that Russian face book version were the comments tried to make fun out of the fact that the Chechen once were seen as "freedom fighters" by the US. But i don't think that the president Putin would talk like this on telephone with Obama.

The PRC is officially an atheist state. It brutally suppresses Buddhists in Tibet and Muslims in the also occupied westernmost region of the PRC which the PRC named Xinjiang. The population of Xinjiang are Muslim, Turkik speaking peoples who are not remotely ethnic Chinese.

The fascist dictatorship that the CCP runs focuses on Western religions simply because the West is predominant in the world and the West has religion. The CCP focuses very much on religion as an evil that must be eradicated. When I signed employment contracts in the PRC, each one said absolutely no discussion of religion or politics.

The CCP-PRC has nothing to boast about which would allow it to say to anyone, "I told you so."

[Steely Dan]

Here's an irony to be sure; The Boston mosque attended by the brothers was given a subsidy by the Boston authorities letting the land it was built on be sold for less than half it's listed value. The self same mosque then hosted a speaker preaching sedition against the U.S. If you don't want to be used as a doormat by savages it's best to not to give them the opportunity.

The Islamic Society of Boston, attended by Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, recently hosted a book event featuring a journalist who has been highly critical of the U.S. and U.K. “War on Terror,” which she described as a “war against Islam.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/19/bombing-suspects-mosque-hosted-author-who-criticized-us-uk-for-war-against-islam/#ixzz2R4sPKgJP

Edited April 21, 2013 by Steely Dan

[folium]

This case is a watermark for me. I always thought that if you took intelligent people, brought them to the west, gave them good life, good education and a chance at a great life, Almost no one would turn to this type of deviant behavior.

This is a clear case where i am totally wrong. There are some people that are wired in such a way that even with all the assets available to them, they still chose to hurt other people.

What is it about the Islamist Muslims that make them so different from moderate Muslims and the rest of humanity? I dont think any other religious subset causes so much pain. please correct me if i am wrong.

Is it that they believe and obey their religious clerics without question? Do they? If so, does that make them more susceptible to deviant ideology?

I'm not even sure about moderate Muslims now. It seems that these young men started out as moderate Muslims they suffered no injustices in the US, but still were turned to radicalism without anyone moderate knowing it. If someone noticed something, they are not saying it, there by perpetuating the radicalism of others.

I'll probably get flame for this, showing my ignorance and all, but i'm really at a wall here. Any enlightening thoughts from any one? I'm really troubled by my conclusion that even all moderate Muslims could be radicalized, and the only warning sign is a showing of slight discontentment.(who hasn't felt disenchanted at one time or another?) And if any moderate could be radicalized, its not really deviant behavior, but something that is a part of the religious nature, albeit a minor part.

I hope the investigations in the next several days, weeks months, years, will add some clarity to my thoughts.

Muslims are good and bad as any other of the Abrahamic religions.

Please tell us any other time in history that a Christian, Hindu, Buddhist or any of the other 5000+ deities worshiped on the planet today has placed shrapnel bombs in public places to murder and maim innocent civilians? This is the MO of the radical Islamist. No sense arguing the point.

Any major religion you care to mention will have incidents in their history of the mass murder of innocent civilians. Communists/atheists can also be included, just have a look at the recent history of the homeland area of the Boston bombers; Chechnya, Dagestan, Ingushetia have all seen brutal massacres of civilians.

Re shrapnel bombs or nail bombs, they are hardly the preserve of jihadists. For instance the US Weathermen were keen users of such devices, as were both Loyalists and Republicans in Ulster, a right wing nut job in London also used nail bombs. Henry Shrapnel was a Napoleonic British Army officer who invented shrapnel shells and the concept continues to this day in military use, albeit using flèchettes or ball bearings rather than nails and bolts.

[Publicus]

The final paragraph in my Post No. 708 was written by keemapoot, not by me. I regret it was juxtaposed into my statement in the post. I'm not a lawyer.

[ZhouZhou]

Here's an irony to be sure; The Boston mosque attended by the brothers was given a subsidy by the Boston authorities letting the land it was built on be sold for less than half it's listed value. The self same mosque then hosted a speaker preaching sedition against the U.S. If you don't want to be used as a doormat by savages it's best to not to give them the opportunity.

The Islamic Society of Boston, attended by Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, recently hosted a book event featuring a journalist who has been highly critical of the U.S. and U.K. “War on Terror,” which she described as a “war against Islam.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/19/bombing-suspects-mosque-hosted-author-who-criticized-us-uk-for-war-against-islam/#ixzz2R4sPKgJP

where is the irony?

I think the "war on terror" has also some critics in the West/USA who are not Muslim.

and there are also Muslim who fight together with the USA that "war on terror".

The pros and cons are allowed to be discussed in the USA because the USA grants freedom to its people and that they can believe what ever they want. that is a good thing.

[folium]

meanwhile a Statement of the Ambassador of the Czech RepublicAs more information on the origin of the alleged perpetrators is coming to light, I am concerned to note in the social media a most unfortunate misunderstanding in this respect. The Czech Republic and Chechnya are two very different entities - the Czech Republic is a Central European country; Chechnya is a part of the Russian Federation.

http://www.mzv.cz/washington/en/czech_u_s_relations/news/statement_of_the_ambassador_of_the_czech.html

Reality Czech,

Reality check indeed. And I won't even bother to trawl through earlier posts with embarrassing and unfounded accusations about bombing suspects.

Not content with smearing innocent people like Sunil Tripathi or the Saudi, seems like the Inspector Clouseaus of the social media sleuth variety need geography lessons too.

Might mean there could still be a role for professional journalists after all......not that that are perfect but having seen the alternative...

Edited April 21, 2013 by folium

[jamhar]

Edit, sorry the quotes are too messed up to save the post

Been there also dude.

But on a different note,

I for one, think that the suspects uncle deserves all my respect (whether he wants it or not! lol)

He's one of the rare muslim that has openly spoken out against other muslims (his nephews) and in favor of his country, the US. His disgust was palpable. I truly felt sorry for this man, who at least on the surface, looks to be the typical american regardless of religion, and just trying to lead a good life. He will also be ever stained by his nephews. My hope is the this stain on him is soluble somewhat and he will be able to move on. Probably not until well after the trial, however.

There was even a statement by some Pakistan taliban that they would not make such bombings.

I don't think that it is a RARE Muslim who think such bombings are not good.

Agreed, on the muslims that think so. But I'll go further. I believe most muslims, moderate or not, believe so also.

but it is rare, for a muslim to go against another muslim in support of the US, esp. with such conviction. and that includes muslims that currently have immigrated to the US.

There was a piece in the BBC, prior to information about the suspects being released, about how the Muslim community of Boston was hoping that the purps were not Muslim (selfish thought or not they realized). They seemed like meek and cowed groups. but that's how the fundamentalist Muslims groups work, i believe. They submit the will of any opposing groups or ideas with threats of harm or death. So yes, from what I've seen, Any Muslim that is willing to come out publicly and stand with his other fellow countrymen of the US, against the fundamentalist Islamist is rare.

If i'm wrong, please show me.

[theblether]

Edit, sorry the quotes are too messed up to save the post

Been there also dude.

But on a different note,

I for one, think that the suspects uncle deserves all my respect (whether he wants it or not! lol)

He's one of the rare muslim that has openly spoken out against other muslims (his nephews) and in favor of his country, the US. His disgust was palpable. I truly felt sorry for this man, who at least on the surface, looks to be the typical american regardless of religion, and just trying to lead a good life. He will also be ever stained by his nephews. My hope is the this stain on him is soluble somewhat and he will be able to move on. Probably not until well after the trial, however.

How many +1's can we give a post?

People can recognize the hurt, betrayal and genuine anger that the Uncle displayed. We recognize the common humanity. As long as we always remember to recognize the common humanity the terrorists cannot win, because they rely upon us turning against each other.

When we do that, that is their victory, so I choose the former path. The vilification of all Muslims by a certain contingent is playing into the hands of terrorists. They use racial attacks as recruiting sergeants, they use religious hatred as recruiting sergeants.

Don't feed the dragon