Explosions at the Boston Marathon

[Peter F]

You have no idea what you're talking about......Do yourself a favor and Google United States Supreme Court Case Hamdi vs Rumsfeld and the ensuing Military Commissions Act of 2006...... Simply put, A combatant status review tribunal could determine Peter F an unlawful enemy combatant if they saw fit.

Actually I have done myself the favour of googling Hamdi vs Rumsfeld and the MCA of 2006. And you are correct that Peter F could be determined to be an enemy combatant if the authorities saw fit to do so. Actually thats applies to every American in America and many others too.

Perhaps you should read the decision also. Perhaps then you would understand what the case was about and what the decision meant.

Wiki sums it up nicely by stating:

although Congress had expressly authorized the detention of enemy combatants in its Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) passed after 9/11, due process required that Hamdi have a meaningful opportunity to challenge his enemy combatant status.

HAMDI VS RUMSFELD

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html

Quote from majority decision

"Under the definition of enemy combatant that we accept today as falling within the scope of Congress’ authorization, Hamdi would need to be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” to justify his detention in the United States for the duration of the relevant conflict."

Endquote

so you see that the learned judges were using the Authorization for Use of Military Force as thier basis to determine who was or could be a 'combatant'

The government of the day took that decision to heart and established the CSRT's. Which even defined an enemy combatant

ORDER ESTABLISHING COMBAT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

http://www.defense.gov/news/jul2004/d20040707review.pdf

Quote:

For the purpose of this order, the term 'enemy combatant' shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban

or Alqueda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalation partners. This includes any person who has committed a beligerent act or who has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces. Each detainee subject to this order has been determined to be an enemy combatant through multiple levels of review by officers of the department of defence.

Endquote

So I think the necessary link to Alqueda/Taliban is still absolutely necessary for detention as a combatant (legal or otherwise).

However, it turns out that the combatant status has been rendered moot by the Obama administration. It seems now the US government is simply referring to combatants - specifically illegal combatants - as detainees.

Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees

ttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html

particularly the link at the bottom of that page : Memo Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority

Which states:

Quote

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines

planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on

September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or

substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are

engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any

person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in

aid of such enemy armed forces.

Unquote

and again, a link must be shown that the detained is detained because of the detaineds' link to AlQueda/Taliban.

And that is the required condition for detention as a combatant.

[Guest Derek L]

Actually I have done myself the favour of googling Hamdi vs Rumsfeld and the MCA of 2006. And you are correct that Peter F could be determined to be an enemy combatant if the authorities saw fit to do so. Actually thats applies to every American in America and many others too.

Perhaps you should read the decision also. Perhaps then you would understand what the case was about and what the decision meant.

Wiki sums it up nicely by stating:

HAMDI VS RUMSFELD

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/03-6696.ZO.html

Quote from majority decision

"Under the definition of enemy combatant that we accept today as falling within the scope of Congress’ authorization, Hamdi would need to be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States” to justify his detention in the United States for the duration of the relevant conflict."

Endquote

so you see that the learned judges were using the Authorization for Use of Military Force as thier basis to determine who was or could be a 'combatant'

The government of the day took that decision to heart and established the CSRT's. Which even defined an enemy combatant

ORDER ESTABLISHING COMBAT STATUS REVIEW TRIBUNAL

http://www.defense.gov/news/jul2004/d20040707review.pdf

Quote:

For the purpose of this order, the term 'enemy combatant' shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban

or Alqueda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalation partners. This includes any person who has committed a beligerent act or who has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy armed forces. Each detainee subject to this order has been determined to be an enemy combatant through multiple levels of review by officers of the department of defence.

Endquote

So I think the necessary link to Alqueda/Taliban is still absolutely necessary for detention as a combatant (legal or otherwise).

However, it turns out that the combatant status has been rendered moot by the Obama administration. It seems now the US government is simply referring to combatants - specifically illegal combatants - as detainees.

Department of Justice Withdraws “Enemy Combatant” Definition for Guantanamo Detainees

ttp://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2009/March/09-ag-232.html

particularly the link at the bottom of that page : Memo Regarding the Government’s Detention Authority

Which states:

Quote

The President has the authority to detain persons that the President determines

planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on

September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

The President also has the authority to detain persons who were part of, or

substantially supported, Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are

engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any

person who has committed a belligerent act, or has directly supported hostilities, in

aid of such enemy armed forces.

Unquote

and again, a link must be shown that the detained is detained because of the detaineds' link to AlQueda/Taliban.

And that is the required condition for detention as a combatant.

Thanks for the wiki update, but I already understand the ruling and the associated laws, and how they could be applied to the Boston terror suspect if required.

As of yet, he still hasn’t been read his Miranda rights……..

[Peter F]

"He will not be treated as an enemy combatant," Carney told reporters at a briefing. "We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100661412

[Guest Derek L]

"He will not be treated as an enemy combatant," Carney told reporters at a briefing. "We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions."

http://www.cnbc.com/id/100661412

And that is the Administrations and justice departments determination, but as outlined above, a US citizen can be tried by a military tribunal………And Fox is saying he was charged just moments ago with using a weapon of mass destruction.

[cybercoma]

A WMD eh?

[Peter F]

hmmmm. the White House Statements and Releases has no mention of the story.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-and-releases

yet has statements about other matters from 22 April

the most closely related statement being

Readout of the President's National Security Council Meeting Today

President Obama convened the National Security Council in the Situation Room today from 11:30 to 1:00 to review the events in Boston.

etc.

of course, the transcripts of todays press briefing arnt up yet...could have been Mr Carnys answer to a question that is the source

Edited April 22, 2013 by Peter F

[Guest Derek L]

A WMD eh?

That's what they're saying

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/22/17860373-boston-marathon-bomb-suspect-charged-with-using-weapon-of-mass-destruction?lite

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was charged Monday with using a weapon of mass destruction – and the White House said he will be tried in a civilian court.

[guyser]

And it's just been reported on FNC, said suspect has not and will not be read his Miranda rights, indicating he'll be treated as an enemy combatant ..........And I'm talking nonsense

He wilol not be treated as an enemy combatant, nor will rendition occur.

The US has him and will do with him what they will ....on US soil

[Guest Derek L]

He wilol not be treated as an enemy combatant, nor will rendition occur.

The US has him and will do with him what they will ....on US soil

And I just said as much several posts up

[GostHacked]

I think that this needs further sourcing and clarification.

Does this include 9/11 for example ?

It's been sourced and clarified, check the video I posted with Judge Napolitano. He does a break down of it.

Does not include 9/11, but does include the first bombing at the WTC in 1993.

[Michael Hardner]

It's been sourced and clarified, check the video I posted with Judge Napolitano. He does a break down of it.

Does not include 9/11, but does include the first bombing at the WTC in 1993.

You posted the wiki page about him. I don't care to watch a video - it usually takes too much time. All I need is a cite that says the FBI helped set up the first WTC incident.

[GostHacked]

You posted the wiki page about him. I don't care to watch a video - it usually takes too much time. All I need is a cite that says the FBI helped set up the first WTC incident.

I gave you a cite. but you don't care to watch a video. Takes longer to read the following.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/28/nyregion/tapes-depict-proposal-to-thwart-bomb-used-in-trade-center-blast.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a

bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and

they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless

powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The

informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the

fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had

other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the

informer said.

The account, which is given in the transcript of

hundreds of hours of tape recordings Mr. Salem secretly made of his

talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as in a far

better position than previously known to foil the Feb. 26 bombing of New

York City's tallest towers. The explosion left six people dead, more

than 1,000 injured and damages in excess of half a billion dollars. Four

men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court in that attack.

They knew about the plot, they were involved in the plot, they had the chance to prevent the plot. They failed.

http://www.nytimes.com/1993/10/31/nyregion/bomb-informer-s-tapes-give-rare-glimpse-of-fbi-dealings.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

Also the mention of Salem VS Rumsfeld fits into this narrative of the FBI involved in the failed sting.

I also posted Napolitano's wiki page as a reference of a person of 'authority' ... since people like to listen to authority.

Edited April 22, 2013 by GostHacked

[cybercoma]

That's what they're saying

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/22/17860373-boston-marathon-bomb-suspect-charged-with-using-weapon-of-mass-destruction?lite

i don't doubt it. I think it's a ridiculous redefinition of WMD though.

[Michael Hardner]

They knew about the plot, they were involved in the plot, they had the chance to prevent the plot. They failed.

Your quote:

"It has been documented time and time again that most of the foiled plots were plots contrived by the FBI."

You have utterly wasted my time here. Picking through false claims like this requires reading the entire article - and there's nothing I see here that says the FBI did this plot - in fact the article says THIS:

"The transcripts show the torment of the F.B.I. agents and of Mr. Salem over whether the attack on the World Trade Center could have been prevented, as Mr. Salem repeatedly and furiously insists, and whether the decision to pull him off the case six months before the explosion was a fatal blunder. "

I have wasted far too much time in my life with these fringe claims. They had an informant, and the informant says that he could have stopped the plot and disagrees with the FBI.

So cites about these conspiracies fall into two categories:

1) Fringe sites that make sensational claims with no other substantiation

2) MSM sites that don't back up claims

[GostHacked]

Michael Hardner, on 22 Apr 2013 - 16:10, said:

Your quote:

"It has been documented time and time again that most of the foiled plots were plots contrived by the FBI."

You have utterly wasted my time here. Picking through false claims like this requires reading the entire article - and there's nothing I see here that says the FBI did this plot - in fact the article says THIS:

Only you can waste your time. No one is forcing you here.

Quote

"The transcripts show the torment of the F.B.I. agents and of Mr. Salem over whether the attack on the World Trade Center could have been prevented, as Mr. Salem repeatedly and furiously insists, and whether the decision to pull him off the case six months before the explosion was a fatal blunder. "

I have wasted far too much time in my life with these fringe claims. They had an informant, and the informant says that he could have stopped the plot and disagrees with the FBI.

A lot of things as of late seem like fringe claims and seem to be a waste of time for you. But yet you still find time to post about how annoyed you are.

Quote

So cites about these conspiracies fall into two categories:

1) Fringe sites that make sensational claims with no other substantiation

2) MSM sites that don't back up claims

Well then you have a problem with the media in how they dole out the information. The MSM makes some of the most sensational claims out there. What I find interesting is that information from 'a government official', or 'anonymous sources say' posted on an MSM article is taken at face value, more often than a 'fringe' site that backs up the claims with names and places.

[Michael Hardner]

Only you can waste your time. No one is forcing you here.

Exactly. I have learned my lesson this time.

But yet you still find time to post about how annoyed you are.Well then you have a problem with the media in how they dole out the information. The MSM makes some of the most sensational claims out there. What I find interesting is that information from 'a government official', or 'anonymous sources say' posted on an MSM article is taken at face value, more often than a 'fringe' site that backs up the claims with names and places.

Maybe. In any case, I won't be wasting my time with unsubstantiated, or poorly substantiated claims moving forward. I gave you the benefit of the doubt this time, since it's been several years since I've looked into this kind of thing. It will now be several years before I do it again no doubt.

[WWWTT]

Ok here's a video that shows the first suspect alive.

Is this actually the suspect?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/04/20/video-was-tamerlan-tsarnaev-murdered-suspect-seen-alive-naked-and-handcuffed/

WWWTT

[Guest Derek L]

i don't doubt it. I think it's a ridiculous redefinition of WMD though.

There is a difference between definitions though. In a criminal sense, a WMD will include a device using explosives (obviously in this case) or propellants like a rocket or mortar.

[GostHacked]

Exactly. I have learned my lesson this time.Maybe. In any case, I won't be wasting my time with unsubstantiated, or poorly substantiated claims moving forward. I gave you the benefit of the doubt this time, since it's been several years since I've looked into this kind of thing. It will now be several years before I do it again no doubt.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The claims are there Mike. Some just simply chose not to pay attention to them.

But all these dramas were facilitated by the F.B.I., whose undercover agents and informers posed as terrorists offering a dummy missile, fake C-4 explosives, a disarmed suicide vest and rudimentary training. Suspects naïvely played their parts until they were arrested.

When an Oregon college student, Mohamed Osman Mohamud, thought of using a car bomb to attack a festive Christmas-tree lighting ceremony in Portland, the F.B.I. provided a van loaded with six 55-gallon drums of “inert material,” harmless blasting caps, a detonator cord and a gallon of diesel fuel to make the van smell flammable. An undercover F.B.I. agent even did the driving, with Mr. Mohamud in the passenger seat. To trigger the bomb the student punched a number into a cellphone and got no boom, only a bust.

This is legal, but is it legitimate? Without the F.B.I., would the culprits commit violence on their own? Is cultivating potential terrorists the best use of the manpower designed to find the real ones? Judging by their official answers, the F.B.I. and the Justice Department are sure of themselves — too sure, perhaps.

Also can you tell me why the FBI would need information on identifying the suspects they already tailed back in 2011 and 2010. They wanted the public to help identify them when the FBI already had all the info they needed on these guys. Does this show incompetence?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=t7b52o1x8EY#!

[GostHacked]

There is a difference between definitions though. In a criminal sense, a WMD will include a device using explosives (obviously in this case) or propellants like a rocket or mortar.

Rockets and mortars are not considered WMDs. I believe they are classified as 'conventional weapons'. A semi automatic weapon could be considered a WMDs.

[cybercoma]

There is a difference between definitions though. In a criminal sense, a WMD will include a device using explosives (obviously in this case) or propellants like a rocket or mortar.

it obviously has a military connotation used in the context of terrorism. Don't even try to tell me it doesn't.

[Guest Derek L]

Rockets and mortars are not considered WMDs. I believe they are classified as 'conventional weapons'. A semi automatic weapon could be considered a WMDs.

Not the criminal definition............Again, I understand the laws pertaining to said definition.....Google Eric Harroun and RPG

[Guest Derek L]

it obviously has a military connotation used in the context of terrorism. Don't even try to tell me it doesn't.

Well that’s perpetrated by the media, doesn’t mean it’s correct………How about a WMD = a device that can kill & injury a great many people well also destroying property?

[cybercoma]

Connotation. That's all.

If I tell someone that a terrorist is being charged with using a WMD, the first thing he/she will think of is not going to be a make-shift pressure-cooker bomb. Granted the law may be appropriate, since it maybe fits the strict legal definition. Nonetheless, it sounds like pure hyperbole to hear that he's being charged with using a WMD when in the last decade we've been concerned with sarin, anthrax, and dirty nukes.

Edited April 22, 2013 by cybercoma

[jacee]

Ok here's a video that shows the first suspect alive.

Is this actually the suspect?

http://21stcenturywire.com/2013/04/20/video-was-tamerlan-tsarnaev-murdered-suspect-seen-alive-naked-and-handcuffed/

WWWTT

Apparently? the aunt says yes.

http://www.infowars.com/tsarnaev-aunt-claims-naked-man-in-video-is-tamerlan/

But others say it was someone who "went outside" and the police freaked at him.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?412090-Is-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-Alive-And-Well&p=4989691

So it's Alex Jones v Ron Paul.