Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

Kind of like the police who arrested several people, even stripping one naked in public while onlookers gawked and took pictures. Oops, sorry about that! But it's OK, we're professionals!

Exactly.

They and the FBI are law enforcement. Self-declared Internet sleuths are not.

I will also point out that a citizen has recourse to sue the law enforcement professionals, if they feel the need. To my knowledge, you can't really sue the anonymous Internet sleuths here or elsewhere; so the sleuths get all the fun of playing the game but none of the responsibility.
 
And Federal charges have now been filed against the surviving bomber: "Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction", and "Malicious Destruction of Property Resulting in Death".
In which case Saddam Hussein certainly had many weapons of mass destruction. In fact, I've probably had a few myself. Well done US government for making the term 'weapon of mass destruction' far more meaningless than it was before.
 
To be fair, I believe the general use of the term WMD is not the same as that defined in federal law.

See http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/2...ber-is-charged-with-wmd-use/?iid=sl-main-lead for a pretty good explanation.
I know. That's why I accused them of making the term meaningless. The president himself referred to WMDs in Iraq, when we knew without doubt that they had, for example, tank shells. Why not instead charge him with...I don't know...using a bomb?
 
How's that? There's no evidence whatsoever at this point that these dudes were politically motivated.

Can we even talk about terrorism at all when people don't claim responsibility for an attack? Especially when it's one isolated event.

It depends upon what you call politically motivated but from what I have heard there are lots of things pointing to terrorism. If you use the WH definition there is no question.
 
I know. That's why I accused them of making the term meaningless. The president himself referred to WMDs in Iraq, when we knew without doubt that they had, for example, tank shells. Why not instead charge him with...I don't know...using a bomb?

Because that charge is covered under "Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction" ;)

The context is as important to the meaning of words and terms as anything else. For example, it's not murder to shoot an enemy soldier during war. In fact, all sorts of restrictions on various gun laws and similar don't apply to soldiers performing their duties (like not firing a weapon in city limits, for example). Likewise, WMD in a war/nation-to-nation discussion means nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons.

However, from a legal standpoint, concering domestic issues, it simply means a weapon that can't be discriminate. With a gun, you can in theory target a specific individual. With a bomb, not so much.

I guess I just don't see the confusion you see, because the differing contexts of the two uses make a clear distinction (to me).
 
Last edited:
As I understand matters; If you do not Mirandize an arrestee, you cannot use anything he says subsequently to convict him.

It seems to be very unlikely that they need anything he says to get a conviction at this time.

So as long as they exclude anything he says from trial, his rights are not at all violated!

That seems to be what all the legal experts are saying;the all not reading a suspect's his Miranda rights does is make anything he says afterwards inadmssible in a court of law. All other evidence can be used to against him.
Apparently that has been the way the Miranda rules works from the day the supreme court made the ruling, but people get confused, probably because of the way movies and TV have misintreperting it.
BTW,let;s face it, I find it hard to believe that many people are totally unaware of their Miranda rights until they have become a standard in popular culture.
 
Exactly.

They and the FBI are law enforcement. Self-declared Internet sleuths are not.

I will also point out that a citizen has recourse to sue the law enforcement professionals, if they feel the need. To my knowledge, you can't really sue the anonymous Internet sleuths here or elsewhere; so the sleuths get all the fun of playing the game but none of the responsibility.

Hey,let's get rid of professional law enforcement and return to the good old days of vigilante commitees and lynch mobs.
Not a good idea,IMHO, and I am very much a hard liner when it comes to law and order issues.
 
US v Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Criminal Complaint

18 U.S.C. s 2332a(a) Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction
18 U.S.C. s 844(i) Malicious Destruction of Property Resulting in Death

Affidavit of Probable Cause

13. At approximately 2:45 p.m., Bomber Two can be seen detaching himself from the crowd and walking east on Boylston Street toward the Marathon finishing line. He appears to have the thumb of his right hand hooked under the strap of his knapsack and a cell phone in his left hand. Approximately 15 seconds later, he can be seen stopping directly in front of the Forum Restaurant and standing near the metal barrier among numerous spectators, with his back to the camera, facing the runners. He then can be seen apparently slipping his knapsack onto the ground. A photograph taken from the opposite side of the street shows the knapsack on the ground at Bomber Two's feet.

14. The Forum Restaurant video shows that Bomber Two remained in the same spot for approximately four minutes, occasionally looking at his cell phone and once appearing to take a picture with it. At some point he appears to look at his phone, which is held at approximately waist level, and may be manipulating the phone. Approximately 30 seconds before the first explosion, he lifts his phone to his ear as ifhe is speaking on his cell phone, and keeps it there for approximately 18 seconds. A few seconds after he finishes the call, the large crowd of people around him can be seen reacting to the first explosion. Virtually every head turns to the east (towards the finish line) and stares in that direction in apparent bewilderment and alarm. Bomber Two, virtually alone among the individuals in front of the restaurant, appears calm. He glances to the east and then calmly but rapidly begins moving to the west, away from the direction of the finish line. He walks away without his knapsack, having left it on the ground where he had been standing. Approximately 10 seconds later, an explosion occurs in the location where Bomber Two had placed his knapsack.

[...]

19. Near midnight on April 18,2013, an individual carjacked a vehicle at gunpoint in Cambridge, Massachusetts. A victim of the carjacking was interviewed by law enforcement and provided the following information. The victim stated that while he was sitting in his car on a road in Cambridge, a man approached and tapped on his passenger-side window. When the victim rolled down the window, the man reached in, opened the door, and entered the victim's vehicle. The man pointed a firearm at the victim and stated, "Did you hear about the Bostonexplosion?" and "I did that." The man removed the magazine from his gun and showed the victim that it had a bullet in it, and then re-inserted the magazine. The man then stated, "I am serious."

20. The man with the gun forced the victim to drive to another location, where they picked up a second man. The two men put something in the trunk of the victim's vehicle. The man with the gun took the victim's keys and sat in the driver's seat, while the victim moved to the front passenger seat. The second man entered the victim's vehicle and sat in the rear passenger seat. The man with the gun and the second man spoke to each other in a foreign language.

21. While they were driving, the man with the gun demanded money from the victim, who gave the man 45 dollars. One of the men compelled the victim to hand over his ATM card and password. They then drove to an ATM machine and attempted to withdraw money from the victim's account. The two men and the victim then drove to a gas station/convenience store in the vicinity of 816 Memorial Drive, Cambridge. The two men got out of the car, at which point the victim managed to escape.
 
you can't really sue the anonymous Internet sleuths here or elsewhere;

Actually, you can, and it has happened, numerous times, since as early as 1991, the early days of the internet.

http://www.wave.net/immigration/lawyer/libel.html

http://www.casp.net/sued-for-freedo.../slapp-being-sued-for-first-amendment-online/

http://www.thestar.com/sports/golf/2012/02/02/phil_mickelson_suing_over_internet_postings.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/jury...suit-anonymous/story?id=16194071#.UXWSQkqU9nM


Especially, read that last one, because if you go accusing actual people of stuff that they haven't done, this could be what you get!!

"After the Leshers filed their lawsuit in February 2009 against the anonymous commenters, a Texas judge ordered Topix to turn over identifying information about the anonymous posters. Information disclosed by Topix, including Internet Protocol (IP) addresses, or the unique number assigned to each computer, led the couple to a business owned by the husband of a woman who accused the couple of sexual assault in 2008.

A jury on Friday awarded the Leshers with $13.78 million."
 
Last edited:
In which case Saddam Hussein certainly had many weapons of mass destruction. In fact, I've probably had a few myself. Well done US government for making the term 'weapon of mass destruction' far more meaningless than it was before.

You've made pressure cooker bombs laced with nails and ball bearings? Interesting. I think it also includes an element of intent though.
 
Interesting.

It seems a bit odd, though, that it is so keen to establish the bombings had "a substantial impact on interstate and foreign commerce". Why is that significant in this case?

It's an element of the first charge, Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction:

18 USC 2332a(a)

(a) Offense Against a National of the United States or Within the United States.— A person who, without lawful authority, uses, threatens, or attempts or conspires to use, a weapon of mass destruction—

(1)against a national of the United States while such national is outside of the United States;

(2)against any person or property within the United States, and

--(A)the mail or any facility of interstate or foreign commerce is used in furtherance of the offense;

--(B)such property is used in interstate or foreign commerce or in an activity that affects interstate or foreign commerce;
--(C)any perpetrator travels in or causes another to travel in interstate or foreign commerce in furtherance of the offense; or

--(D)the offense, or the results of the offense, affect interstate or foreign commerce, or, in the case of a threat, attempt, or conspiracy, would have affected interstate or foreign commerce;

(3)against any property that is owned, leased or used by the United States or by any department or agency of the United States, whether the property is within or outside of the United States; or

(4)against any property within the United States that is owned, leased, or used by a foreign government,

shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, and if death results, shall be punished by death or imprisoned for any term of years or for life.

Emphasis is mine.
 
Damn you Cylinder!! You've ninja-ed me! I think they're also setting their case up to seek the death penalty.
 
Last edited:
According to DEA and other Supreme Court cases, the commerce clause applies to every facet of US life except perhaps gun ownership.
 

Back
Top Bottom