Yikes- 2 bombs exploded at the Boston Marathon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

As long as due process is followed. I read some things insinuating Miranda rights were not read because that would be an acknowledgement that the suspect has rights - that argument worries me.

---

I've read all manner of conspiracy theories surrounding this case. There is no reason to believe that the withholding of the Miranda warning has anything to do with anything other than the suspect's incapacity and/or the suspect's status as a terrorism suspect and the consequent intention to interrogate him with regard to the extent of future danger to the public. Until it is established definitively that there are no other conspirators, no other related dangers, then there actually is no right to remain silent.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

But I remember being taught in high school one of the great things about America was that citizens of this country were entitled to due process of law?

---

Yes, of course. This is the process: Ensure that the public is safe from further terrorist, then turn attention to the past crimes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Given that our lives are not worth guaranteed access to health care and this is the only country in the first world this holds true for, perhaps holding onto due process for all citizens might not be a bad idea?

---

I don't see the connection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bUU

I've read all manner of conspiracy theories surrounding this case. There is no reason to believe that the withholding of the Miranda warning has anything to do with anything other than the suspect's incapacity and/or the suspect's status as a terrorism suspect and the consequent intention to interrogate him with regard to the extent of future danger to the public. Until it is established definitively that there are no other conspirators, no other related dangers, then there actually is no right to remain silent.

Yes, of course. This is the process: Ensure that the public is safe from further terrorist, then turn attention to the past crimes.

I don't see the connection.

---

The connection is to me anyway, that I figured out real young that this is the only country in the first world where you can get sick and lose everything - even these days if you have insurance. To me this implies human life is not worth much in America and that life all boils down to money. This is why I think it is so important to hold onto what few rights may be left - such as due process - as human life in and of itself by design is not worth much in the US. I was twelve when I figured that one out and its only become more true to me over time due to health care getting more and more inaccessible to more and more people. Rob

Okay I understand. I guess I'm just more of an optimist - that although that's the direction so many Americans seem to be trying to drive the nation, that there are still enough people left who do care about humanity more than money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bUU

Okay I understand. I guess I'm just more of an optimist - that although that's the direction so many Americans seem to be trying to drive the nation, that there are still enough people left who do care about humanity more than money.

---

I do believe it is true that there are people out there who care more about humanity than money - I like to count myself in their number - but as far as the people with the political and economic power go in America? Not so much is the nicest observation I can make. Rob

@ Zoebird: I don't know if anybody knows why the US is generally more violent than some other countries with similar demographics. Canadians have a high rate of firearm ownership but don't have the same level of purposeful shooting deaths, even in big cities (because population density has something to do with it). Even different states among the US have different rates of violence per capita and different types of violence. I don't know if anybody knows. I don't think any single thing is completely responsible. Culture obviously plays a role, and by culture I mean the folks one interacts with or sees as examples. This can be anything from friends to movies to the press, right? We have a lot of violence in all types of media, but of course exposure to that does not make most people violent. Every single time there's an act of violence, it seems like we have this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

This is why I think it is so important to hold onto what few rights may be left - such as due process - as human life in and of itself by design is not worth much in the US.

---

I think too many of us have a TV drama view of due process. The Miranda warning serves two purposes, one being to inform the suspect of the right to resist self-incrimination and the second being the understanding that counsel is available to assist in purpose #1. Failure to provide that warning ensures that the suspect's self-incriminating statements cannot be used against him/her in a subsequent trial.

If the state believes that there is ample evidence to ensure a conviction, such as photographs, video, witnesses and confessions made to witnesses, etc., the due process argument doesn't hold water as any post-arrest self incrimination is not necessary to the trial.

To me, the real question is whether or not the suspect should be classified as an enemy combatant, a designation which leaves me with mixed feelings in this case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

I think too many of us have a TV drama view of due process. The Miranda warning serves two purposes, one being to inform the suspect of the right to resist self-incrimination and the second being the understanding that counsel is available to assist in purpose #1. Failure to provide that warning ensures that the suspect's self-incriminating statements cannot be used against him/her in a subsequent trial.

If the state believes that there is ample evidence to ensure a conviction, such as photographs, video, witnesses and confessions made to witnesses, etc., the due process argument doesn't hold water as any post-arrest self incrimination is not necessary to the trial.

To me, the real question is whether or not the suspect should be classified as an enemy combatant, a designation which leaves me with mixed feelings in this case.

---

Hi Alan.

In this case I am not so worried about the reading of the Miranda Rights - I am more worried that this individual has access to a fair and speedy trial, legal representation if he can not afford it, and also a chance to tell his side of the story if he so desires. I have heard rumblings online that this may be denied here and I hope this is not true as in my book such would take America down even further. I don't read the future, so I don't know what is going to happen, and I also realize that just because I read something online, that does not make it true. So I'm hoping for the best here - even though I think the supsect is a POS - in my book he still deserves all of the above from the justice system, otherwise we as a nation become ever more uncivilized.....Rob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan

To me, the real question is whether or not the suspect should be classified as an enemy combatant, a designation which leaves me with mixed feelings in this case.

---

Me too. Rights aren't worth much if you can have them when you don't need them but they can be taken away whenever it's expedient.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

Me too. Rights aren't worth much if you can have them when you don't need them but they can be taken away whenever it's expedient.

---

+1 Rob

NPR had an interview with a former attorney general who gave a perspective on the Miranda rights. "The Miranda warning, which informs suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent and to have legal counsel, is being withheld from Tsarnaev for now under the public safety exception, which U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz has said officials are invoking due to an immediate threat to the public."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-the-right-one

I also under stand that there is still some debate about whether the trial will be military or civilian, which will make a difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

but, is anyone else concerned about the martial-law look of boston in photos? and searches of homes without warrants (just going door to door and searching?). Of course, people can permit police to search their homes, which circumvents this -- but what if someone refused? then what? a shoot-out at their home? harassment? going to get a warrant?

I look at it and go "wow, americans are getting increasingly comfortable with a police state."

and that freaks me out.

and I don't even think that Alex Jones is completely on his rocker (i don't think he's completely off, either).

---

I don't think we are any more of a police state then we've ever been. Law enforcement has always been able to search a home - or car, boat, RV, person - without warrant as long as there is probable cause and they can't wait for a warrant. And the determination of probable cause is left up to the discretion of the officers on scene. So technically they can - and always have been - able to do searches even without warrants and even by force. Now what happens at trial with any arrests or evidence is A different story.

Fortunately, thanks to the original Miranda ruling and thousands of media references, I don't believe there is anyone left in this country who doesn't know "You have a right to remain silent..."

Yeah, by not issuing the suspect his Miranda rights you are actually protecting the suspect since whatever he says can,t usually be used in court. There are exceptions but in general Miranda-ising someone asap is a greater benefit to law enforcement than the suspect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

Me too. Rights aren't worth much if you can have them when you don't need them but they can be taken away whenever it's expedient.

---

Me too. But there are so many more - different - charges that can be brought to bear using military law rather than in the civilian codes. And since this guy isn't a citizen and may well be part of an international organized militant terror group, then I can see where using the military Justice codes or Geneva Convention rules may work better. Of course time will tell if he is just a disaffected radical youth or part of something larger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

Me too. But there are so many more - different - charges that can be brought to bear using the UCMJ rather than in the civil codes. And since this guy isn't a citizen and may well be part of an international organized militant terror group, then I can see where using the military Justice codes may work better. Of course time will tell if he is just a disaffected radical youth or part of something larger.

---

Wait--he's not a citizen? I've missed this in the endless media chatter.

He is a citizen. It was the older brother who wasn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ApatheticNoMore

He is a citizen. It was the older brother who wasn't.

---

My bad. Had heard they were both here on legal greencards as were the parents before they returned to Russia. How did he become a citizen? Although, even as a citizen he could be subjected to military law/Geneva Convention rules - if it's proven he was part of an international terror group. He also would still be subject to civilian law - both Fed and State - afterwards. The military justice system does follow procedural laws of due process but they can often be different in structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rogar

NPR had an interview with a former attorney general who gave a perspective on the Miranda rights. "The Miranda warning, which informs suspects of their rights, including the right to remain silent and to have legal counsel, is being withheld from Tsarnaev for now under the public safety exception, which U.S. Attorney for Massachusetts Carmen Ortiz has said officials are invoking due to an immediate threat to the public."

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/...-the-right-one

I also under stand that there is still some debate about whether the trial will be military or civilian, which will make a difference.

---

That's a relief to me. I think part of the reason we have so much violence here is that we have too permissive of a society. I've worked in Japan, throughout Europe, and all over the US. They don't play in Germany. Officers are on the trains checking your passport. If you don't have one, they put you in jail. There's much more of an authoritive approach to foreigners there. I think America has been foolish and naive. I feel we could learn a lot from other countries with strict borders and boundaries.

A friend of mine who is English says that she thinks Russian people perceive freedom as being able to do anything they want. We studied Russian ballet together, and I left because of the opressiveness in that culture. Dictatorships really affect people. We tend to mirror our government when we travel and live somewhere else. It's in our subconscious. When I worked as an asst. director in Berlin, I ran rehearsals in a democratic way. They don't respond to that. It confused them. They are comfortable with a socialist atmosophere at work. Realizing this, I went home.

I believe part of the reason we have so much violence here is because people clash. Even family members clash and fight. Integration doesn't always work. It's hard to be around people that want to force you to see things their way. (Especially religious fanatics.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spartana

My bad. Had heard they were both here on legal greencards as were the parents before they returned to Russia. How did he become a citizen? Although, even as a citizen he could be subjected to the UCMJ - military law - if it's proven he was part of an international terror group. He also would still be subject to civilian law - both Fed and State - afterwards. The military justice system does follow procedural laws of due process but they can often be different in structure.

---

I think he just went through the normal process of becoming a naturalized citizen. I've heard today he will be tried in civilian court, which I think is appropriate.

"(Especially religious fanatics.) "

I think that's the salient point.

I don't have t.v. anymore, but in one of the articles I read it said that he believed that "Americans use the Bible to invade other countries." Although I feel the death penalty is appropriate in this case, I also see his point. I think this is an insight into why so many people in other countries hate Americans.

A lot of people that come to America from places like Croatia have had their country invaded...sometimes three times! It can destroy them, psychologically. The man I'm thinking of hated everybody and didn't speak to anyone at work. The uncle of these boys described them the same way. "They hated everybody." I've seen this with one of my Russian ballet teachers. He came here, and worked here, but he despised us. I think it's more common in subcultures than we know.

I had another ballet teacher who was from Egypt, but trained at the Kirov school from age 9-17 in Russia. He is Muslim, and extremely talented. He really resented American women who were powerful and succesful. His idea of a woman's place was very, very low. Even though he lived here, his ideas and beliefs reflected a society where women have no rights. They bring all that with them when they come here. It's no wonder we have so much conflict. It's perfectly fine to beat up your wife and children in a lot of these countries.

that's just the diversity argument, again, though.

it isn't just diversity. there is diversity here (particularly in our main cities). We also have a lot of racism and other problems here -- problems that exist in the US. We also have gangs and a drug problem, too -- and also domestic violence, rape, etc.

And yet, we don't have bomb threats and the last massacre was 1997 (source). And here are our crime statistics (or some of them). I won't bother mentioning terrorism per se, because I don't see NZ as much of a target compared to the US in terms of political power/etc.

And, it might be noted that Australia also hasn't seen a massacre since 1996 (source). Australians also have an intense history of racism and a diverse population, as well as a large population spread across a large land mass. And, they have more "anti-immigrant" sentiment than NZ does overall. In NZ, over 60% of people polled felt that immigration was positive and immigrants of other nationalities (predominately asians) were an asset to the nation, whereas in AUstralia, like much of Europe, that is around and often below 50%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by awakenedsoul

I had another ballet teacher who was from Egypt, but trained at the Kirov school from age 9-17 in Russia. He is Muslim, and extremely talented. He really resented American women who were powerful and succesful. His idea of a woman's place was very, very low. Even though he lived here, his ideas and beliefs reflected a society where women have no rights. They bring all that with them when they come here. It's no wonder we have so much conflict. It's perfectly fine to beat up your wife and children in a lot of these countries.

---

American exceptionalism.

There is nothing wrong with conflict when it is directed toward creating a better society for all. Bludgeoning one's fellow Americans into submission with bombs (Tsarnaev) or bombast (Gingrich)? Not the way to do it. But challenging assumptions that we tend to make in the U.S. -- with valid studies and factual arguments and a genuine interest in assessing positives and negatives -- is not a bad thing. The discussion ought to be what is best for everyone, not just the 1% -- or the 80% who have pretty much won the lottery just by being born middle-class and white in America.

I'm not at all suggesting that America is better off reducing women to housekeepers and baby machines. And I do have a very hard time imagining that there is a positive to beating up wives and children (though Americans are surprisingly okay with mental abuse). But does any American ask why civilizations much older than ours have persisted despite maintaining these traditions/laws? No, we simply act appalled and, typically, don't even bother to ask the question.

In the Egyptian teacher's case, he grew up in a society in which women had no rights. For him, it is normal. When he moved to Russia, he brought with him a lifetime of that kind of training and "normal". If an American were to move to Egypt and proclaim that headgear on women was useless and that, despite what the predominant religion "says", women should have just the same rights as men and, oh, by the way, there's no reason to make alcohol or paying interest on loans illegal, you can guess what the reaction would be. It's no different here. Exceptionalism exists in most places. And it is a common cause of conflict, often not carried out peacefully.

Quote:

---

And I do have a very hard time imagining that there is a positive to beating up wives and children (though Americans are surprisingly okay with mental abuse).

---

I tend to think beating up wives and children is pretty common in the U.S. anyway. It doesn't necessarily have the legal ok though (well spanking might, but domestic violence doesn't) and making it illegal is a form of saying it's not ok.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by creaker

I think he just went through the normal process of becoming a naturalized citizen. I heard today that he will be tried in civilian court, which I think is appropriate.

---

Thanks. I also think it's good that he'll be tried in civilian court as I personally wouldn't consider him an enemy combatant. Actually, now that I have coffee in me and can think straight, even if they did try him as an enemy combatant he wouldn't be tried under the UCMJ since that is specificly for US military members. It would probably be according to the Geneva Convention law or international treaty laws. They probably still have that option to bring charges under that as a civilian acting as an enemy combatant but can still bring federal as well as state charges too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zoebird

that's just the diversity argument, again, though.

it isn't just diversity. there is diversity here (particularly in our main cities). We also have a lot of racism and other problems here -- problems that exist in the US. We also have gangs and a drug problem, too -- and also domestic violence, rape, etc.

And yet, we don't have bomb threats and the last massacre was 1997 (source). And here are our crime statistics (or some of them). I won't bother mentioning terrorism per se, because I don't see NZ as much of a target compared to the US in terms of political power/etc.

And, it might be noted that Australia also hasn't seen a massacre since 1996 (source). Australians also have an intense history of racism and a diverse population, as well as a large population spread across a large land mass. And, they have more "anti-immigrant" sentiment than NZ does overall. In NZ, over 60% of people polled felt that immigration was positive and immigrants of other nationalities (predominately asians) were an asset to the nation, whereas in AUstralia, like much of Europe, that is around and often below 50%.

---

New Zealand: Where men are men and sheep are afraid :-)! Just teasing!

My sister lived in New Zealand for a year and had much the same sentiments as you do - a fairly peaceful place with some crime, some racial issues, and yet very few violent crimes or terrorist activities and really no need for any kind of heavy police or military intervention in day to day life (until those millions of sheep run amok!!).

However I lived in Europe at different periods in my life - for instance Spain for almost a year, Germany (6 months) and North Ireland (Belfast for a couple of months when in the coast guard - during the Bobby Sands hunger strike - you oldsters will remember that) and in almost all of Europe there are (or were) constant terror attacks. They were usually done by local rebel Seperatrist groups like Basque Seperatists in Spain and the IRA in Belfast and Red Army in Germany rather than international groups - although that happens there also. When I was in Spain almost all of the train stations had been bombed at one time or another, and they had permanently closed the baggage storage locker areas and some of the waiting areas to reduce that. And it was very common to have heavily armed security teams, with bomb sniffing dogs, board trains or buses at random points enroute to search for explosives. That was actually fairly common in much of Europe - even in the northern countries. And of course in Belfast it was basicly in a permanent lock down. Fenced off areas in the city where you had to go thru a turnstile to get around in - and searched by heavily armed British soldiers - and even in the countryside you'd see soldiers at all the cross roads (amongst the cows and green farm fields) that would stop vehicles to inspect them.

Personally I understood that was needed in Europe at those times I lived there, but would find it not only prohibitive here in the USA and a big overkill based on the number of "terror-type" of instances we have had historicly - as well as a huge violation of my rights. I would definetly consider that a police state. I'd rather we keep it like you have it in New Zealand and not turn this into a Belfast (which has been back to normal now for years) with heavy police and military security at every corner, curfews and city lockdowns. No need IMHO - unless OUR sheep run amok that is :-)!

the IRA did not confine their bombings to Northern Ireland, unlike the Loyalists, they also bombed the UK mainland. I know that from personal experience as I was living in London during the height of their bombing campaign.

Perhaps we in Europe have lived with internal terrorists for such a long time, we mourn, then move on... And await thenext atrocity.