Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[eyeball]

By what strange interpretation of facts are you suggesting that is the case here?

I was speaking generally in response to other people's suggestion this case involved Islamic terrorism.

It was on behalf of Islam.

If you say so.

[eyeball]

Not so much, really. Perhaps the individuals responsible for Beslan did, but no one can possibly give up the moral high ground to a murderous slug like Vladimir Putin. He called far, far more children than any of the rebels will ever manage.

Apparently some observers think Putin is now going to crack down hard on Chechnya because of the unlikelihood that they'll garner much sympathy from Americans in the wake of Boston.

Islamists consider themselves Muslims first, and then way, way, way way down the ladder, comes whatever country they live in.

Consider how many people in the west say all Muslims are Islamists.

[Sleipnir]

Wow Fox News, CNN and the likes are horrible at reporting events from Friday afternoon /)_-

They didn't even know what they were doing!

Edited April 21, 2013 by Sleipnir

[Guest American Woman]

Apparently some observers think Putin is now going to crack down hard on Chechnya because of the unlikelihood that they'll garner much sympathy from Americans in the wake of Boston.

Yeah, cuz Putin has been so concerned about what Americans think in all that he does...

[kimmy]

My bad, just one loudmouth senator calling for it ... http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/20/republican-lawmakers-urge-obama-to-use-combatant-status-for-bombing-suspect/

But it could easily be applied and won't surprise me if that ends up being the case.

More than just some loudmouth... McCain, Graham, and Ayotte, 3 of the more prominent Republican senators.

I have to wonder, what makes this guy a "good candidate for enemy combatant status"? What makes him different from the guy who shot up the movie theatre in Aurora Colorado? Is it because he's a Muslim? Is there the belief that he might be a member of some organization?

I don't see a reason why this can't be handled by the criminal justice system.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

What makes him different from the guy who shot up the movie theatre in Aurora Colorado? Is it because he's a Muslim? Is there the belief that he might be a member of some organization?

What makes him different from the guy who shot up the movie theater in Aurora? One could look to London - which, to my knowledge, didn't increase security at movie theaters by 40% after said incident; yet that's what's happening for the London Marathon. In other words, I'd say it's the possibility that he may be part of an organization. I can't think of any other reason why London would beef up security et al the way it has after a chance incident in the U.S.

I don't see a reason why this can't be handled by the criminal justice system.

Do you think you know as much about it as those in authority/those who are dealing with/have inside information about such incidents/threats? Following the media doesn't exactly qualify one to make such calls. I'm not saying that I think he should have that status - I'm just questioning how you can claim to "see no reason" why he shouldn't. In other words, if there is a reason, you may not be privy to it. Edited April 21, 2013 by American Woman

[Guest Derek L]

More than just some loudmouth... McCain, Graham, and Ayotte, 3 of the more prominent Republican senators.

I have to wonder, what makes this guy a "good candidate for enemy combatant status"? What makes him different from the guy who shot up the movie theatre in Aurora Colorado? Is it because he's a Muslim? Is there the belief that he might be a member of some organization?

I don't see a reason why this can't be handled by the criminal justice system.

-k

What makes the brothers different? The FBI, at the request of the Russian Government, interviewed/investigated the elder brother in 2011, coupled with the elder brother recently spending half a year in Russia.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/russian-security-told-fbi-that-tamerlan-tsarnaev-was-radical-islam-follower-1.1246915

WASHINGTON -- The Russian FSB intelligence security service told the FBI in early 2011 about information that Tamerlan Tsarnaev, one of the brothers suspected in the Boston Marathon bombings, was a follower of radical Islam, two law enforcement officials said Saturday.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev died in a shootout, and his younger brother was captured alive. They were identified by authorities and relatives as ethnic Chechens from southern Russia who had been in the U.S. for about a decade.

According to an FBI news release issued Friday night, a foreign government said that based on its information, Tsarnaev was a strong believer and that he had changed drastically since 2010 as he prepared to leave the U.S. for travel to a region in that country to join unspecified underground groups.

The FBI did not name the foreign government, but the two law enforcement officials identified the FSB as the provider of the information to one of the FBI's field offices and also to FBI headquarters in Washington. The two officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record about the matter.

And as I said yesterday, prior to this information being reported in the media, even though several members suggested I was in a fantasyland and talking nonsense:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22566-explosions-at-the-boston-marathon/page-17

In all actuality, it would be better to get the younger brother alive and thoroughly interrogate to see if him and his brother had further aide from outside sources……..Now if the police reports are correct, it was thought that during the “chase” the terrorists were chucking military grade explosives at the pursuing police……

In my opinion, and speculating on what explosives were used in the actual bombing, working with “military grade explosives”, like C-4 or Comp-B, would suggest the two youngish terrorists had outside training, as such, catching the little bastard alive and getting him to either spill the beans in custody, in the United States, or threaten to hand him over to the Russians………In Putin’s Russia, beans spill you.

A naturalized US citizen (as of 9/11 2012) and the State Department has confirmed his dead older brother just returned from a “ 6 month vacation in Russia”, coupled with the FBI releasing that two years ago, at the request of a foreign unnamed (see Russia) government, they conducted an “interview” with the older brother over his ties to radical Islam………..As to the legality of sending the currently alive younger brother to Russia in the back of a black business jet to be further interviewed by the Russian FSB…….Two words:

Extraordinary Rendition.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22566-explosions-at-the-boston-marathon/page-18

We shall see, if they think he's part of a larger cell with ties to Chechen rebels/terrorists he very well could be.

And as I later said:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/22566-explosions-at-the-boston-marathon/page-19

Why not......Rendition is mentioned in the US Constitution, and Governments can extradite their own citizens to another country, they do it all the time……..Extraordinary Rendition, coupled with a terrorist label speeds up the process…..For instance, as the details of the attack become known, the FSB could be asked by US authorities to help aide them in the conspiracy portion of the case……..Who did the older brother go “visit” in Moscow? I’m sure the Russians would like to know….

Where are we at today? This 19 year has yet to be read his Miranda rights and well being treated, US Government agencies and the Russians (and maybe the British, Canadians (they have an aunt living in Ontario) Germans, Georgians and Polish etc) are exchanging notes and information as to whom these two (and their extended family) Chechens may know residing within Russia and the region.

If it’s determined they are nobodies and pose no further threat, then criminal charges will be laid in the next several days…….But if it’s determined that they are a part of a greater terrorist network, be it within the United States and/or Russia (or anywhere else), it is quite possible that the charges the 19 year old will receive will start somewhere within the 10 volt region and progressively work up to 120 volts……

We shall see within the days to come.

[kimmy]

What makes him different from the guy who shot up the movie theater in Aurora? One could look to London - which, to my knowledge, didn't increase security at movie theaters by 40% after said incident; yet that's what's happening for the London Marathon. In other words, I'd say it's the possibility that he may be part of an organization. I can't think of any other reason why London would beef up security et al the way it has after a chance incident in the U.S.

I would suspect that the possibility of copycat crimes, as well as good old-fashioned ass-covering are probably equally likely explanations for why security at other events has been increased. As in, if you're in charge of security at a big event, and you don't increase security after a big incident like this, you're going to be in trouble whether extra security is actually required or not.

Why marathons? Are bombers just really uncreative? Is there something special about a marathon that just wouldn't work the same at some other big gathering of people?

Do you think you know as much about it as those in authority/those who are dealing with/have inside information about such incidents/threats? Following the media doesn't exactly qualify one to make such calls. I'm not saying that I think he should have that status - I'm just questioning how you can claim to "see no reason" why he shouldn't. In other words, if there is a reason, you may not be privy to it.

I am sure those in authority know more about it than we do. I am sure that the people who have the responsibility for making those decisions will weigh factors that we might not know about. Do you know what three people who aren't responsible for making those decisions? John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte. Senators McCain and Graham and Ayotte are making their pitch in public. They are politicking. They're going to the press to tell US citizens that their justice officials ought to classify this person as an "enemy combatant". Why would they do that?

-k

Edited April 21, 2013 by kimmy

[WWWTT]

Here's a link that feeds into the direction of this thread

WWWTT

[GostHacked]

Nope. No military trial unless it can be shown that he was a member of alqueda or the taliban. Without such evidence there is no 'combatant' status and no Military trial and no gitmo and no shipping off to Russia. The rule of law applies to Americans committing crimes on American soil.

You will want to take note of the NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) which allows anyone to be termed enemy combatant and have their rights stripped indefinitely. And the base for the detention can be much less than what the Boston bombers have accomplished.

http://rt.com/usa/obama-ndaa-detention-president-288/

[Guest American Woman]

I would suspect that the possibility of copycat crimes, as well as good old-fashioned ass-covering are probably equally likely explanations for why security at other events has been increased. As in, if you're in charge of security at a big event, and you don't increase security after a big incident like this, you're going to be in trouble whether extra security is actually required or not.

Yet this is the first I've heard of such increased security abroad after such an incident. The idea that the concern is that there could be a "copycat" incident, only one week later, seems unlikely to me. In less than a week, a copycat is going to make the plans, get explosive materials, make bombs, get them on the route of the marathon? - seems like that would be less of a concern than the concern that these two could have had ties with some terrorist/militant group. Given their history, it seems unlikely that the concern is with a copycat, as there was no such concern regarding theaters, as I pointed out, nor regarding schools. Why wouldn't a copycat crime in London be just as likely to follow those incidents?

Why marathons? Are bombers just really uncreative? Is there something special about a marathon that just wouldn't work the same at some other big gathering of people?

I think the more likely question is 'why not marathons?"

I am sure those in authority know more about it than we do. I am sure that the people who have the responsibility for making those decisions will weigh factors that we might not know about.

Exactly my point.

Do you know what three people who aren't responsible for making those decisions? John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte. Senators McCain and Graham and Ayotte are making their pitch in public.

Do you know what three people are in a position to know more about threats to America and are more likely to be privy to information than you are? Senators McCain and Graham and Ayotte.

It's part of their job to be concerned, and deal with, incidents against the U.S.

They are politicking. They're going to the press to tell US citizens that their justice officials ought to classify this person as an "enemy combatant". Why would they do that?

Why? Because it's what they feel should be done, and as elected government officials, elected by U.S. citizens, they feel it's their duty? As I said, they are in a position to know more about threats to America, to be privy to information, than the Average Joe.

[GostHacked]

Here's a link that feeds into the direction of this thread

WWWTT

I recognize the voice, that's one of Alex Jones' dudes Dan Bidondi. Apparently there were drills that morning, but that's not even mentioned anymore. I've seen it reported like that on a few local affiliates

One thing, is that even with a highly televised event with lots of Boston PD, SWAT, bomb sniffing dogs, military and military police and at least one private security company. Even with that insane amount of security this type of event could still not have been prevented. Nobody noticed a damn thing.

I understand the use of more CCTV for security however it won't do anything to prevent an incident like this. It will only document who did it. You cannot fight terrorism with blanket security.

It's kind of like the gun debate in a way. With each tragedy, there will be a push towards more security while more restrictions of people's rights are put into place. More surveillance of the public for their 'safety'. But as soon as we want to turn that same surveillance system back on them, it's met with utter resistance. If you got nothing to hide, then what's the big deal? Anyways slight tangent that kind of fits in here.

You have shootings where people are dying every day, and yet these two knuckleheads managed to get an entire city on martial law lock down with two very amateurish bombs. Then we hear USA USA USA as they caught the bombers while the brave Americans were forced into hiding in their homes due to the lock down.

These two have been made infamous and will be talked about for years. Whatever mark on American history they wanted to make they did get theirs.

[-TSS-]

I think allowing him a status of an enemy combatant would flatter him and that is exactly why he should be treateda as nothing else than a criminal.

Edited April 21, 2013 by -TSS-

[Peter F]

There is only one way to be a 'combatant' in the USA: Be associated with Alqueda or the Taliban. Without that association there is no way the bomber can be declared an enemy combatant. Despite all the rhetoric about war against terrorism the USA is not at war with anybody except Alqueda and the Taliban. The USofA is not at war with Chechen terrorist groups or any other terrorist organizations except Alqueda and the Taliban.

Two crackpots taking up the Chechen cause in Boston does not a war make. Derek raised the possibility that perhaps they were under some sort of marching orders from the Chechen terrorists because the older brother visited Chechnya some time ago.

The FBI questioned the fellow at the request of the Ruski's for that trip. The FBI was so concerned with the result of the questioning and with the intelligence provided by the Ruski's that they let him go free. Of course that was the Big Brother bomber not the surviviing

little brother who never went back to chechyna.

While it is possible that the bombers were part of some larger non-alqueda/non-taliban organization with plots to attack the USofA, there isnt a shred of revealed evidence to support Dereks contention. And the fact that after questioning by the FBI they let Big Brother

go free shows that there isnt a shred of secret evidence to support Dereks contention either. So it seems Big Brother took a trip to chechyna for the same reasons many immigrants take trips to the old country.

There fool will be tried in massachusetts in a civil court and executed (maybe - if found guilty).

Edited April 21, 2013 by Peter F

[eyeball]

Yeah, cuz Putin has been so concerned about what Americans think in all that he does...

He seemed to go out of his way to make an impression with Junior and we know Bush liked what he saw when he gazed deep into Putin's eyes. Remember that?

Russia is our friend and ally against Islam now. Do you intend to protest their crackdown in Chechnya?

[Guest American Woman]

There is only one way to be a 'combatant' in the USA: Be associated with Alqueda or the Taliban. [...] The USofA is not at war with Chechen terrorist groups or any other terrorist organizations except Alqueda and th Taliban.

The war is against terror, and as such, is against al Qaeda "and other militant organizations."

Two crackpots taking up the Chechen cause in Boston does not a war make.

If they were "taking up a cause," how would you know what cause they were taking up?

[Peter F]

The war is against terror, and as such, is against al Qaeda "and other militant organizations."

If they were "taking up a cause," how would you know what cause they were taking up?

no ma'am. The war is against Alqueda and no one else. An yes I have no idea what cause/s they have or have not taken up.

[Guest American Woman]

no ma'am. The war is against Alqueda and no one else.

Wrong. To quote Bush:

"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/specials/attacked/transcripts/bushaddress_092001.html

[Peter F]

President Bush can declare war all he wants. Johnston declared war against poverty. Nevertheless, despite thier declarations, there aint no wars without congressional authorization. And the only war that congress authorized was that declared in the authorization for the use of military force 2001.

Section 2 - Authorization For Use of United States Armed Forces

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

So for enemy combatant status a link must be shown between the bombers and the september 11 2001 attacks.

Maybe there is one? I don't know. Should be easy to do if one starts with Kevin Bacon...

[cybercoma]

And how's that War on Drugs working out for them?

[cybercoma]

Americans like to make a lot of declarations. It started with the Declaration of Independence and they've yet to live up to any of them.

[kimmy]

Yet this is the first I've heard of such increased security abroad after such an incident. The idea that the concern is that there could be a "copycat" incident, only one week later, seems unlikely to me. In less than a week, a copycat is going to make the plans, get explosive materials, make bombs, get them on the route of the marathon? - seems like that would be less of a concern than the concern that these two could have had ties with some terrorist/militant group. Given their history, it seems unlikely that the concern is with a copycat, as there was no such concern regarding theaters, as I pointed out, nor regarding schools. Why wouldn't a copycat crime in London be just as likely to follow those incidents?

You aren't aware of heightened security after other terror incidents? You probably haven't paid sufficient attention. Dude puts explosives in his shoe, we're all getting our shoes scanned at airports. Dude brings flammable liquid onto a plane, then we can only bring mini-toothpaste and mini-shampoo in our carry-on bags. Dude sets his underwear on fire on a plane, and they spend billions of dollars developing machines that see through clothes.

I think the more likely question is 'why not marathons?"

Well, because there are lots of cameras and now there extra security. Somebody who just wanted to kill a bunch of people could have gone to a 4/20 rally yesterday and encountered far less security.

Dramatic action shot of the heightened security at the London Marathon:

Do you know what three people are in a position to know more about threats to America and are more likely to be privy to information than you are? Senators McCain and Graham and Ayotte.

It's part of their job to be concerned, and deal with, incidents against the U.S. Why? Because it's what they feel should be done, and as elected government officials, elected by U.S. citizens, they feel it's their duty? As I said, they are in a position to know more about threats to America, to be privy to information, than the Average Joe.

So are they basing this demand on information that the authorities have not yet released to the general public? If so, wouldn't what they're doing constitute a security leak?

Whether he's actually part of some organization or not, I don't see a good reason not to handle this through the criminal justice system. I suspect that the senators don't actually have a good reason either, and that this is just political grandstanding. (ie, capitalizing on public outrage and paving the way for "Obama is soft on Muslim Terror!" and similar rhetoric.)

Lots of horrible crimes are committed, and they should all be treated seriously. But giving the government the power to arbitrarily circumvent the legal process based on how much public outrage they can muster seems like a bad precedent. If there is a compelling security reason, then for sure they should classify him as an enemy combatant. But if they classify him as an enemy combatant so that their political adversaries stop saying "Obama is soft on terror!" then I think that would be shameful.

-k

[Guest American Woman]

President Bush can declare war all he wants. Johnston declared war against poverty. Nevertheless, despite thier declarations, there aint no wars without congressional authorization. And the only war that congress authorized was that declared in the authorization for the use of military force 2001.

So for enemy combatant status a link must be shown between the bombers and the september 11 2001 attacks.

Maybe there is one? I don't know. Should be easy to do if one starts with Kevin Bacon...

Notice that declaration doesn't say "al Qaeda," but "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..." That's open to interpretation, so any ties at all to the al Qaeda cause, any support, could be determined to be "aid." The war against terror is not "against al Qaeda and no one else," as you claim, by any means.

Furthermore, there have been military conflicts, initiated by the president, lacking congressional authorization. "Most uses of military force in U.S. history, including significant military engagements such as the Korean War and the Kosovo bombing campaign, have been initiated without express congressional authorization."

The Commander in Chief is the one who can determine "military combatant" status, and his decision is not limited in this instance to "only al Qaeda."

[Peter F]

Notice that declaration doesn't say "al Qaeda," but "those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001..." That's open to interpretation, so any ties at all to the al Qaeda cause, any support, could be determined to be "aid." The war against terror is not "against al Qaeda and no one else," as you claim, by any means.

Furthermore, there have been military conflicts, initiated by the president, lacking congressional authorization. "Most uses of military force in U.S. history, including significant military engagements such as the Korean War and the Kosovo bombing campaign, have been initiated without express congressional authorization."

The Commander in Chief is the one who can determine "military combatant" status, and his decision is not limited in this instance to "only al Qaeda."

well, ok. I suppose the CinC can declare anyone he wishes to be a combatant and I suppose every court in the land will have to abide by that declaration.

[Guest American Woman]

well, ok. I suppose the CinC can declare anyone he wishes to be a combatant and I suppose every court in the land will have to abide by that declaration.

It that's what you get out of it, so be it.

The fact remains, the war is not against "only al Qeada," as you claimed.

Edited April 21, 2013 by American Woman