BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Bettynh
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 01:06 PM

My son is in basic training for the army, so he's rather isolated from national and local news. I've been struggling to write him about this coherently and accurately, keeping it to less than book size. Thanks, bobad, for that New Yorker article. I printed it out to send. Today's letter will be describing aftermath - planning in Boston to open the crime sceene street (would that every city leader could demand clear representation from insurance companies, pro bono lawyers to represent local companies, and a loan pool for help with continuing business in the area - Mayor Menino will be sorely missed after this November), local and various agency cops winding down, sports and other events postponed, etc. I may mention the Miranda warning issue, but only to remind him that it's about the verbal recitation of rights the accused has, whether warned or not, as a citizen. I'll remind him that blaming all Muslims for this would be equivalent to blaming all Christians for the Branch Davidians (and the events of 20 years ago in Waco) or all video games for the Columbine school shootings of 13 years ago. My son is 30, so maybe he can help others in his group process this without hate. This whole affair probably has more to do with disaffected American young men (my son knows many) than it does with foreign intrigue.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 01:26 PM

Since Timothy McVeigh was tried, and convicted, in an ordinary court for murdering a lot of people in a terrorist bombing, what would be the rationale for not doing the same in the case of his fellow citizen involved in the Boston bombings?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 01:30 PM

And I see that it's been determined any trial will in fact be in a civilian court.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 01:56 PM

> the point of not giving a Miranda warning is that it pretty muh eliminates the possibility of having him tried within the criminal oourt sytstem---it pretty much assumes a military tribunal will be employed.

Not at all, at least according to numerous legal experts on TV. The Supreme Court has ruled an "Exception to the Miranda Decision." This Exception states that the warning is not required when public safety may reasonably be thought to be under continued threat (e.g., the possibility of unexploded bombs or a larger conspiracy).

No information gained under the Exception, however, may be used in court against the suspect. The reasoning is that the Fifth Amendment protects you from self-incrimination; it doesn't give you the right also to withhold vital information that cannot incriminate you. (And it cannot if prosecutors are forbidden to use it in court.)

What's more, if there's an airtight case against him - based on photos, physical evidence, and plenty of witnesses - prosecutors may not need any self-incriminating statement from him.

They can read him his Miranda rights after questioning him about things that cannot be used against him. And they probably will (short of an airtight case), if only to eliminate a basis for appeal.

Finally, if he doesn't want to talk, they can't legally make him. To "mirandize" a suspect only makes certain he knows what's in the Constitution, which he may know anyway. The Miranda decision was based on the fact that many arrested suspects *had no idea* they had a right to remain silent and a right to a lawyer.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Bettynh
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 01:57 PM

McGrath, if they're determined to get the death penalty, it'll have to be a federal case. Massachusetts has abolished the death penalty. State lines weren't crossed during the actual crimes, so federal juristiction might be arguable. The various police agencies seem to be trying very hard to maintain a united front, with minimal turf wars. Time will tell on that front.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 03:56 PM

Might make a lot more sense to treat it as what it was, murder carried out by a Boston resident in Boston, to be tried in the Massachusetts legal system. This would mean that the death penalty could not be imposed, but what good would it do to kill him anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 05:21 PM

Dz. has been provided with an attorney - so somebody is advising him of his rights. His lawyer is obligated to tell him he doesn't have to talk.

He faces Federal charges of premeditated murder with an explosive device in an act of terror. There will be other charges, including state charges in Massachusetts. The Federal charge carries a potential death penalty even if state charges do not.

As an American citizen arrested on American soil, it appears so far that he will be tried in civilian court with full Constitutional protections.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 05:39 PM

"what it was, murder carried out by a Boston resident in Boston,"

It was somewhat more than that obviously as attested to by the charges laid.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 06:10 PM

Terrorism is murder. And this was a particularly nasty and sordid murder. Treating it as "something more" in practice gives it a status, even a dignity it doesn't deserve.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 06:21 PM

" In a criminal complaint unsealed Monday in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Mr. Tsarnaev was charged with one count of "using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction" against persons and property within the United States resulting in death, and one count of "malicious destruction of property by means of an explosive device resulting in death" in last week's bombings.

If he is convicted of the charges, he could face the death penalty."

NY Times:

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 07:08 PM

Since Timothy McVeigh was tried, and convicted, in an ordinary court for murdering a lot of people in a terrorist bombing, what would be the rationale for not doing the same in the case of his fellow citizen involved in the Boston bombings?

McVeigh didn't have any Muslim connections.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 07:28 PM

He is being tried in an ordinary court of law so all you apologists of Islamism will have to find another case to embrace so you can trumpet your rallying call of Islamophobia.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: GUEST,gillymor
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 08:20 PM

We need look no further than your post, Bobad.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 08:24 PM

"We need look no further than your post, Bobad."

You are out of your league, you don't know what you're talking about. Educate yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 08:39 PM

gillymor, I abhor Islamists and the methods they employ to promote their agenda. Do you agree with them and support their agenda?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 08:59 PM

Must you act the ass, Bobad?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:08 PM

Must you act the stalker Greg?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:14 PM

"Stalker"? Geez, Bobad - get a life & stop whining like a little kid..

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:25 PM

Gee Greg, do you ever have an opinion on the topics under discussion or do you just stalk and call those who you don't agree with names?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:26 PM

Mommy, Mommy the bad man's picking on me Waaaahhhhhh

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:26 PM

I think we all agree that armed, violent, radical, anti-Christian, anti-Jewish, anti-Buddhist, anti-Hindu, anti-western, anti-democratic, anti-education, anti-feminist, anti-life, pro-theocratic jihadists are a genuine threat to global peace and security.

Or do we?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:33 PM

It would appear, Lighter, that some either do or do not understand the distinction between Islam and Islamism and demonstrate their ignorance by calling people names.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:34 PM

That should read "some either do not"

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:49 PM

some...do not understand the distinction between Islam and Islamism

As others do not understand the distinction between Judaism and Zionism.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:51 PM

Unfortunately the words "Islamism" and "Islam" are so similar as to invite confusion.

That's why I prefer to say "violent jihadists" or something like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:53 PM

That's why I prefer to say "violent jihadists"

Does that designation include Christian and Jewish jihadists?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:54 PM

"As others do not understand the distinction between Judaism and Zionism."

False equivalence, but nice try.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 09:58 PM

False equivalence

How so? Please be specific.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 10:05 PM

"Does that designation include Christian and Jewish jihadists?"

Another attempt at a false equivalence, Greg's on a roll tonight.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 10:28 PM

"Unfortunately the words "Islamism" and "Islam" are so similar as to invite confusion.

That's why I prefer to say "violent jihadists" or something like that."

Ignorance is no excuse for bad manners and false accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Apr 13 - 02:54 AM

"gillymor, I abhor Islamists and the methods they employ to promote their agenda. Do you agree with them and support their agenda?"

Bobad...If you abhor Islamists so much, why did you support them in most of the recent conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa.

You cant have been unaware that their position and agenda would be massively strengthened by the overthrow of people like Col Gadaffi.

I told you often enough!

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 23 Apr 13 - 03:00 AM

I cannot help noting that Bobad's posts seem to contain internal contradictions.

I also have noticed in general that people using the term "Islamist" are usually trying to imply that all followers of Islam are suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Apr 13 - 03:15 AM

I also have noticed in general that people using the term "Islamist" are usually trying to imply that all followers of Islam are suspect.

What a stupid statement.
"Islamist" and "Islamism" are recognised and neutral words.
How are we to discuss those issues without using the accepted words for describing them?

You may find discussion of those issues uncomfortable, but that is entirely your problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 23 Apr 13 - 07:25 AM

"I also have noticed in general that people using the term "Islamist" are usually trying to imply that all followers of Islam are suspect."

The distinction is clear in my mind, perhaps you are looking for something that isn't there or are yourself unclear on the distinction. I'm sure that with a little effort you can work it out.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 23 Apr 13 - 07:56 AM

It is heartening to see a leader from the Muslim community step up to the plate to condemn Islamism and extremism. Dr. M. Zuhdi Jasser, who describes himself as a reform Muslim, says that mainstream Muslims are not doing enough in the fight against extremism and that too many are wallowing in denial and victimhood. And for those here who seem to have a problem with the distinction between Islamism and Islam Dr. Jasser makes it clear enough so that even you should be able to understand it.

Yahoo News

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: bobad
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 07:11 AM

Jihad explained:

It's the doctrine of jihad, stupid
Tarek Fatah

Twelve years after 9/11 and the beat goes on. If the news of jihadi terrorist bombings in Boston and Bangalore was not enough to wake us from our collective slumber, the arrests of Chiheb Esseghaier of Montreal and Raed Jaser from Toronto this week certainly should. Though I doubt it.

According to RCMP Assistant Commissioner James Malizia, the two Muslim men were allegedly getting "direction and guidance" from al-Qaida elements in Iran. He added: "Had this plot been carried out, it would have resulted in innocent people being killed or seriously injured."

While ordinary Canadians and non-Muslims around the world are bewildered by these never-ending news reports of terrorism and alleged plots, the response by the leaders of the Islamic community is the tired old cliche — Islam is a religion of peace, and jihad is simply an "inner struggle."

The fact is these terrorists are motivated by one powerful belief — the doctrine of armed jihad against the "kuffar" (non-Muslims).

It is worth noting that not a single Muslim cleric since 9/11 has mustered the courage to say the doctrine of armed jihad is defunct and inapplicable in the 21st century. They rightfully denounce terrorism, but dare not denounce jihad.

The armed jihad launched against the infidels, is clearly promoted by the 20th-century writings of such Islamists as Syed Qutb and Hassan al-Banna of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood and the late Syed Maudoodi of Jamaat-e-Islami of Indo-Pakistan.

Young Muslims across Canada and the U.S. are given booklets titled Towards Understanding Islam, written by Maudoodi. In the booklet, Maudoodi exhorts ordinary Muslims to launch jihad, as in armed struggle, against non-Muslims.

"Jihad is part of this overall defence of Islam," he writes.

In case the reader is left with any doubt about the meaning of the word "jihad," Maudoodi clarifies:

    "In the language of the Divine Law, this word (jihad) is used specifically for the war that is waged solely in the name of God against those who perpetrate oppression as enemies of Islam. This supreme sacrifice is the responsibility of all Muslims."

Maudoodi goes on to label Muslims who refuse the call to armed jihad as apostates:

    "Jihad is as much a primary duty as are daily prayers or fasting. One who avoids it is a sinner. His every claim to being a Muslim is doubtful. He is plainly a hypocrite who fails in the test of sincerity and all his acts of worship are a sham, a worthless, hollow show of deception."

If Maudoodi's exhortations are not enough to motivate Muslims to conduct acts of terror, we have the words of the late Hassan al-Banna being distributed in our schools and universities. Al-Banna makes it quite clear that the word "jihad" means armed conflict. He mocks those who claim jihad is merely an internal struggle.

Al-Banna says this redefinition of the term "jihad" is a conspiracy so that "Muslims should become negligent."

And here is what Syed Qutb, another Egyptian stalwart of the Islamist movement and the Muslim Brotherhood, writes in his seminal work on Islam and its relationship with the West, Milestones:

    "A Muslim will remain prepared to fight against it (non-Muslim country), whether it be his birthplace or a place where his relatives reside or where his property or any other material interests are located."

Unless the leaders of Canadian and American mosques as well as the Islamic organizations denounce the doctrine of jihad as pronounced by the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-e-Islami, and distance themselves from the ideology of Qutb, al-Banna and Maudoodi, they stand complicit in the havoc that these jihadis are raining down on the rest of us.

For those who search for the root cause of Islamist terrorism, it's the doctrine of jihad, stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 07:51 AM

> it's the doctrine of jihad, stupid.

He means "a radical fundamentalist interpretation of the doctrine of jihad, stupid."

"Jihad" in Arabic means "struggle." Even in English, the word "struggle" can cover anything from an inner quest to World War III. "Kampf" in German can mean a personal "struggle" or it can mean "combat" or "battle."

Same with "jihad." Not quite the same, but consider the meanings of "crusade" in English. If I call for a "crusade against drug use," I'm not thinking about raising armies and only a lunatic would assume I was.

In modern Islam - the kind practiced, for example, by the Tsarnaevs' uncle who told CNN that the bombers "have no right to exist on this earth" - "jihad" simply means an inner struggle to become more spiritual. Incredibly, he even used the word that way in the CNN interview.

Unfortunately there are also dangerous fundamentalists who choose to interpret the word in the most violent way.

It all depends on who's using it and why.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 08:03 AM

Perhaps it might be better to employ instead the term 'holy warriors', since that would embrace the whole range, including those who focus their attentions on other varieties Chritianity and Iskam etc,

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 08:10 AM

Unholy murderers?

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Don Firth
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 04:23 PM

On my local University of Washington based NPR affiliate, a local interviewer (Steve Scher) often hosts a discussion with "The Three Amigos," an ecumenical trio consisting of a Christian minister, a Jewish rabbi, and a Muslim imam. These discussions are always friendly and very enlightening, and draw on what these three religions—going back to the basic texts of each religion—actually say. This more than amply demonstrates that they are in agreement on almost everything, except for extraneous and unimportant details.

Most interesting!

The iman said that the word "jihad" means "struggle." AND, that this is grossly misinterpreted by many militant Muslims as "holy war." "It is NOT 'holy war,'" said the imam. "'Jihad' means one's inner struggle."

There is also the admonition in the Koran that if one kills one person, it is the same as killing ALL people. In short, "Thou shalt not kill."

This will get up the noses of the militant anti-religion folks here, but the atrocities committed by various religions spring, not from the precepts of the religion itself, but from the political motives of the adherents to that religion, trying to twist the religion to justify their heinous wishes.

Where did Jesus ever say, "Those who do not believe in everything I say should be burned at the stake!??"

So—what was the religious justification (as enunciated by Jesus) for the Inquisition?

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 05:04 PM

> the religious justification (as enunciated by Jesus) for the Inquisition?

Plenty - but none of it very sensible and none of it enunciated by Jesus.

Of course greed and ambition (called "politics" nowadays) play a role in these things. But let's not overlook the desire to be "holier than thou" and the sad fact that some people get their kicks by making other people suffer.

One out of every 25 or 30 Americans is supposedly a conscienceless psychopath. Most of them abstain from serious crime because they don't want the hassle of going on the lam.

The proportion on other countries ranges from slightly higher to considerably lower. But everywhere are manipulative, unscrupulous individuals who will do just about anything to get their way.

If they want to get to heaven, for example, and believe, like Inquisitors and "holy warriors," that being ultra-zealous will do the trick, they'll stop at nothing.

Of course, some psychos just get a thrill out of destroying, and if a respected authority says it's cool, they'll be there.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 05:53 PM

The trouble is that people who quite rightly are nauseated at the notion of placing a bomb in a place where it will kill innocent people will find ways to excuse and justify precisely the same kind of thing when it is done by people acting on their behalf in a way that isn't directly visible to them. It becomes 'a sad necessity', in a higher cause. Which I would imagine how those responsible for the Marathon bombs might have described it.

There was a famous episode where Himmler speaking to SS officers involved in genocide declared that the very fact that what they were doing was repulsive made their actions more noble, since it involved a willingness to sacrifice such human instincts because was necessary for a higher cause.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Greg F.
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 06:38 PM

oh those Amusing Republicans

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 07:08 PM

Indeed, McGrath, indeed.

I can't believe that Himmler had any conscience whatsoever. But he did know how to manipulate people who may still have had traces.

Funny how Nazi ideology not only attracted psychopaths, it boosted the worst of them right up to the top.

As for "nausea," a small minority of people wouldn't even feel that.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 07:09 PM

Himmler refused to watch executions because, as he said, his stomach was sensitive.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 24 Apr 13 - 07:44 PM

According to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 03:13 AM

The trouble is that people who quite rightly are nauseated at the notion of placing a bomb in a place where it will kill innocent people will find ways to excuse and justify precisely the same kind of thing when it is done by people acting on their behalf in a way that isn't directly visible to them. It becomes 'a sad necessity', in a higher cause.

I refute that assertion.
It goes without saying that ordinary, decent Muslim people abhor this crime as much as all other ordinary decent people, even though it was done "on their behalf."

Only fanatical extremists excuse or justify such acts.

I think you should excuse and justify that assertion, with examples, or withdraw it.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 04:21 AM

I wasn't particularly thinking of Muslims when I wrote that. In fact i'd doubt that more than a tiny handful of Muslims would be likely to see something like the Marathon bombings as being " on their behalf". But many of us find it easy enough to justify appalling acts carried out by our agents in other circumstances.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 04:32 AM

"excuse and justify precisely the same kind of thing"

"many of us find it easy enough to justify appalling acts"

You can only be speaking for yourself I think.

Subject: RE: BS: Explosions at Boston Marathon
From: Lighter
Date: 25 Apr 13 - 08:22 AM

If he was speaking for himself, could he find the acts "appalling"?

But sometimes acts that would otherwise be appalling are justified, or at least justifiable.

How about killing all those more or less decent Germans, Italians, and Japanese in WW2 to stop the real baddies?

Appalling. Justified. Unfortunately.

(Anyone about to claim that terrorist bombers are no different should read Augustine and Aquinas on "just war theory" and UN Security Council Resolution 1377 before they get back to me.)