Slashdot Mirror
Boston Marathon Bomber Charged With Using 'Weapon of Mass Destruction'
New submitter bunkymag writes "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has now been indicted on over 30 charges relating to his part in the Boston Marathon bombing. Of particular note however is a charge of using a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction.' It's a bit out of line with the commonly-held perception of the term, most notably used in justifying the invasion of Iraq. However, U.S. criminal law defines a 'weapon of mass destruction' much more broadly, including virtually any explosive device: bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, etc. The question arises: is it wise for Tsarnaev to face such a politically-loaded charge? From an outsider perspective, it would seem easy enough to leverage any number of domestic anti-terror laws to achieve anything up to and including the death penalty if required. Why, then, muddy the waters with this new WMD claim, when the price could be giving further ammunition to groups outside of America that already clearly feel the rules are set up to indict them on false pretenses, and explicitly use this sense of outrage to attract new terrorist recruits?"
They could charge him with a felony parking violation. What difference does it make? Not that I'm sympathetic to the bomber. Just sayin'.
Should it not be weapons of Mass. destruction?
Or perhaps just weapons of MA destruction?
but I'd be afraid that I'd be audited.
By this new definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", Saddam did have WMD's and they were in Iraq.
sudo make me a sandwich
So according to the government's own definition the U.S. military not only owns, but uses weapons of mass destruction, probably on a daily basis? I thought they raided Iraq, because the just owned such weapons. This definition is ridiculous!
If this bomb was a weapon of mass destruction then it turns out Bush was right! Iraq totally had WMDs. See, the whole war on terror is justified.
So there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after all!
If you're going to just make up definitions to make things sound worse, why not call him a pedo as well and charge him for that too?
Seriously, the guy's a murderer plain and simple and deserves to be locked up for the rest of his life. But a conventional bomb simply is not a weapon of mass destruction unless you want the term to have no meaning.
Nukes are WMDs. Chemical weapons fit the bill, as do biological ones. Possibly a really huge conventional bomb could reach that (e.g. a daisycutter in a populate d area), but a bomb set off in a crowd which kills 5 people? That's not even remotely a WMD.
The stupidity of this burns, frankly.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Well, that means the US and the UK were correct - Iraq *did* have weapons of mass destruction, it had millions of such weapons. Infact, pretty much every country has them.
In sane-land, this is ridiculous. If it wasn't, how about the US stop blocking the extradition for all the IRA terrorists and money men the UK have been seeking for the past 40 years?
I would hardly count 3 dead as a weapon of mass destruction. All the buildings are still there as well.
as long as he is left lifeless in the end.
Easy there, ganjadude. Personally, I'd like to see the guy rot in a cell.
Keeping people alive to make them think about what they've done seems far more just to me than letting them escape their guilty conscience.
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
By this new definition of "Weapons of Mass Destruction", Saddam did have WMD's and they were in Iraq.
I didn't though of that. Maybe the government is pulling a "Romney" in trying to find a casus belli for that war fiasco retroactively :P
Killing 3 people and maiming 234 using explosives and shrapnel counts as mass destruction in my book. Thanks for asking, though.
Then charge him with three counts of murder and 234 counts of attempted murder. Does it really matter that this was done with explosives? Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?
Using a weapon of mass destruction is a pretty serious violation of the law of conservation of mass. Where did he get the anti-matter?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
As an online discussion of different legal definitions of illicit human behavior grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Bill Clinton, Monica Lewinsky, and the definition of "sex" approaches 1. When such an event occurs, the person guilty of invoking Clinton's Law has effectively forfieted the argument.
I wouldn't worry about that. We could give ponies to crippled children and that would somehow be used to recruit terrorists.
Everyone should read it. At least the commentary about how information can be misused to stir up the masses and move society in one direction or another.
[Begin Rant]Unfortunately, that's were "we" have gone with terrorism. It isn't enough to call someone a terrorist. No they used "weapons of mass destruction" because it sounds more terrifying. It isn't enough to call a robber a robber any more either. No, we've starting calling them terrorist now. Anything to arouse the masses and get them worked up.
It feels like the same thing is going on with the latest flu or viral "epidemics". The latest economic news. It doesn't end.[End Rant]
I've always said English was my second language. Had Romeo and Juliet been written in C, I might have understood it.
I suspect this is another instance where the Federal prosecutors are thinking of primarily domestic considerations. If they bring the biggest and most impressive-sounding charges they can, then all the surveillance powers and generally noxious government behavior seem more justified. It pays to keep the public scared: it keeps the "homeland security" budget super-sized and it makes the Federal prosecutors look and feel bigger than they are. Both of those outcomes are good for their careers.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
wonder if the Colorado gun man gets charged as such too.
"killing 12 people and injuring 58 others"
I can agree with that. I just dont see the outrage by the submitter. If we look at the facts. the man on trial did commit "mass destruction". Sure it is reaching but that doesnt make it untrue.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Well, it seems that the US now has a casus belli to invade pretty much any country that has a factory producing pressure cookers. Look out, Ecuador!
No left turn unstoned.
For purposes of criminal law, the bomb was legally a weapon of mass destruction. The effect of the bomb qualifies as a weapon of mass destruction for purposes of discussion.
Boston Marathon bombing 3 dead, 254 wounded. Fifteen victims suffered amputations, two of which had double amputations.
There are two contexts in which "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is used. In military usage it refers to nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons. Criminal code usage is a superset of military definition, plus "destructive devices." Basically, explosive or incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz payload. The charges are in-line with current criminal law practice.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?
But then his knife would be a weapon of mass destruction!
Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
Try the guy on 3 counts of murder, a bazillion of attempted murder, and throw in a few parking tickets and douchbag haircut crimes as well. The legal system already accounts for people like this, no need to layer on another helping of hysteria and chest-beating.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
If that's the case, every bomb the US has ever dropped counts as a WMD.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
If killing people in a crowd is a weapon of mass destruction, then the shooting off of guns into a crowd by police in combating riots are all weapons of mass destruction.
Indeed, demolition of buildings require bombs blown up in cities. So your companies are using weapons of mass destruction.
And your government is using them in Iraq.
And if you're going to count the number dead, then three is enough to count as "mass" now???
just ask mayor bloomberg
http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conservative/2013/06/mayor-bloomberg-insists-on-statewide-ban-on-sparklers-2671754.html
Sure, but current criminal law practice is to make everything sound rather grandiose. When most people think of WMDs they think of weapons that can cause real mass destruction. Things that kill thousands or millions.
...its all fun and games until you buy some fireworks and then get arrested and charged with possession of weapons of mass destruction.
Do you really think they threw that charge in to be cute?
They are trying to set a precedent, and by the looks of it they will because as you see from the comments here, this guy is automatically guilty of anything they charge him with in the publics eye.
"His name was James Damore."
"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has now been indicted on over 30 charges relating to his part in the Boston Marathon bombing. Of particular note however is a charge of using a 'Weapon of Mass Destruction.' It's a bit out of line with the commonly-held perception of the term, most notably used in justifying the invasion of Iraq. However, U.S. criminal law defines a 'weapon of mass destruction' much more broadly, including virtually any explosive device: bombs, grenades, rockets, missiles, mines, etc. The question arises: is it wise for Tsarnaev to face such a politically-loaded charge? From an outsider perspective, it would seem easy enough to leverage any number of domestic anti-terror laws to achieve anything up to and including the death penalty if required. Why, then, muddy the waters with this new WMD claim, when the price could be giving further ammunition to groups outside of America that already clearly feel the rules are set up to indict them on false pretenses, and explicitly use this sense of outrage to attract new terrorist recruits?"
Absolutely not. Tsarnaev is a terrorist and a murderer. As such, he should be indicted logically, using the law logically, and with all the abundance of evidence arrayed against him.
By trumpeting the charges and re-defining the semantics behind the term WMD, we turn a legitimate case into a political circus. Moreover, when we cheapen a word or term (WMD in this case), when we redefined in an ad hoc manner away from the commonly accepted semantics of it, we setup a terrible precedent, one than can be legitimacy challenged by Tsarnaev's attorney.
There is no sane way in which we can interpret a pipebomb or a pressure cooker bomb as a weapon of mass destruction. No common person exercising common sense and common knowledge can accept such a definition. Any such redefinition is no longer objective. It is biased and subjective, one that can run into trouble with a judge in a court of law (or a jury).
So why risk it? I mean, there are many reasons, political and circus-like reasons, yes, but no valid, legal or ethical reasons.
Tsarnaev is guilty of terrorism. It is guilty of murder. It is guilty of harming other people and property. It is guilty of robbery. It is guilty of kidnapping. It is guilty of manufacturing and deploying destructive devises (of which WMDs are just a very small subset.) One could argue that he is guilty of organized crime (with the objective of committing acts of terrorism.)
There is plenty of objective evidence with which to finding him guilty of all of that in state and federal courts.
He is not guilty of using a WMD. This is a slippery slope for something that is completely unnecessary. If we use that logic, does a mass shooting turns a rifle into a WMD? Does crashing a car to run into a store turns it into a WMD? As horrible as these things might be, there are laws of sufficient strength and logical soundness to prosecute such acts.
This move does not make us safer. In fact, it might have the opposite effect since it trivializes the meaning behind "WMD", which could make it more difficult to prosecute an actual WMD charge.
Authorities, please: Let us not make one more mockery out of legal institutions and charge this criminal appropriately. Do not turn our courts for such an important case into a political circus, please.
The Times Square (attempted) bomb was termed a "weapon of mass destruction" in the charges that were filed. I do think "WMD" is over-kill for those cases.
For the purposes of criminal law, both the bomb and a Hellfire missile would qualify as weapons of mass destruction. For military purposes, neither are.
Killing while waging war in accordance with the law of war does not constitute murder.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
there is a difference between federal law and state law. Murder is not generally considered a federal offense (in one of the civil rights murders it was federal only because it occurred on federal land http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ex-federal-prosecutor-who-led-historic-case-dies)
That is why people entering the country have to say they will not commit a crime while they are here. Any crime they commit is probably only a state issue, but lying on your federal entry form ...
The criminal definition is different from the military definition. That's all this is. Criminally, a weapon of mass destruction is one that destroys indiscriminately, that's all it really means. Yes, there's a lot of verbiage about the size of the explosive and the delivery mechanisms and whatnot, but the underlying thought is causing indiscriminate death. The thought processes and motives are different and state of mind is an important issue in the legal system.
The use of the term "WMD" simply lays bare government's attitude toward the people under their rule:" they are objects, having some value for the state, which can be damaged or destroyed. They are not people, they are not citizens, they are property. And they don't care that we know that to be the case.
brwski
"Because without beer, things do not seem to go as well''
Does it really matter that this was done with explosives? Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?
Gloria: "Do you know that sixty percent of all deaths in America are caused by guns?"
Archie: "Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?"
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
It's almost as if words relating to relative magnitudes are context dependent. A weapon that causes mass destruction on the scale of an individual targeting a crowd isn't a weapon of mass destruction when a country targets another. A .50 is a high caliber gun during a drive by in urban LA, but not when a tank fires on another. The Tsar Bomba was a really big bomb, but a tiny nova.
Cheaper than an execution. Look up the real numbers and be surprised.
Also morally superior. I see no reason to make us all murderers.
The government has figured out your evil schemes and has their eye on you and your pressure cooking WMDs.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
perhaps that explains why they are trying him in criminal court rather than military court?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Keeping them alive makes the rest of us pay for it...
That's just stupid.
You want him kept alive forever? YOU pay for it... I'd rather pay $.005 for a bullet and be done with it.
You are an idiot.
Please stop talking until you learn something about the topic.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
If he is willing to die as a martyr in defense of Islam, and people will glorify it, let him rot in prison with pictures of western decadence and naked men outside the cell but in plain view. Giving him, in his mind, a vip to heaven and other mental cases a figure to revere is the wrong answer
A man with a pistol can cause indiscriminate death. Id hardly count that as mass destruction.
If we call a pressure-cooker bomb a "weapon on mass destruction", what do we call a nuke? WMD is a term that has long had a fairly well defined meaning: nukes, chemical weapons, bio-weapons. If we make the term mean something else, then we just need a new term. If we are going to make up a new term, the why not use it for small bombs?
Words matter! The debate over WMDs in Iraq will be more confusing in future discussions if we change the meaning of the word. It may seem like a good idea to the US to use words like that for emphasis, but what do we do when we are accused of using WMDs against civilian populations in the form of drone-strikes? Of is Israel is accused of using WMDs against Palestinians and demands are made that the US uphold its treaties?
The boston bomber should be accused of using an explosive device to commit mass murder and mayhem. A conviction on that should put him away for the rest of his life, or execute him.
as explained before, military definition for WMD is not the same as criminal code definition. By the criminal code definition, he did in fact use a WMD, by military standards he did not. That could explain why he is having a criminal trial rather than a military trial.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
That is probably the singly most morally repugnant thing I will read all day. As far as I can tell you appear to be no better than this bomber.
They do it because they want to force a plea deal.
The only reason they include it is for the so-called trial penalty. It is realistic enough that a judge won't throw it out, but it is so extreme that if the guy chooses to attempt a trial the risk is greater. It will be so extreme that he won't want that risk, so he'll choose the plea bargain instead of rolling the dice at a trial.
This is the biggest current flaw in the US legal system. Prosecutors have no stake in the game, no disincentive from adding trumped-up and unrealistic charges. It is something that other nations managed to get right with prosecutors needing to pay for accusations that don't result in convictions. If prosecutors needed to pay some significant penalty money to compensate the accused for every charge that is dismissed, the problem would quickly dry up.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
If the cost of the damage is in the millions or billions
So a glass of water thrown at a valuable painting is a weapon of mass destruction?
and there is a large number of injured or dead
Cars, skis, swimming pools, common cold, corners of furniture that seem designed for you to stub your toe on, LEGO bricks...
Millions get killed or injured by those EVERY DAY!
And don't get me started on A4 paper and the cuts one can get from THAT.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
I think maybe I'll just freeze them.
Less dangerous.
If you look at the laws themselves it's a bit weird; 18 USC sec. 2332a seems to introduce the term "weapons of mass destruction" for the sole purpose of re-naming a definition provided in 18 USC sec. 921 called "destructive device," which dates to 1934 at the latest. I'm not savvy enough to figure out when the "WMD" terminology was introduced, but it's at least older than 1996 and seems to serve no purpose other than sounding grandiose.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Thanks for saving us some time on this one. Want to cause mass hysteria? Use a gun - you'll kill more people than you would with a bomb, and you'll face lesser charges when you're caught!
+1 Disagree
The simple fact is, and there were people who brought this up during the Bush administration, which is why this is no surprize at all to me now, the law defines just about any explosive intended to harm people as a weapon of mass destruction. This is not new at all. Even while Bush was raving about WMDs in Iraq, the whole time, even a hand grenade was classified as a WMD.
The shocking thing, to my mind is that Bush never used this to his advantage. This dedinition could have easily been used to manufacture some news stories which would lose the details int he shuffle. "We found WMDs!"
What bothers me is that, this happened in MA, and MA specifically doesn't have the death penalty. The AG here should be bending over backwards to make sure he is charged HERE and fight federal attempts on general princible. Banning the death penalty here was done for good reason and he should be working to respect that as an agent of state law not using the federal loophole to allow him to, without any fight, end up in a court that would kill him.
In any case, this is no politically charged charge, its exactly the defined crime under federal law. Its just not clear to me why the federal government should get involved when this seems like one the state can handle.
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Yeah, it sounds like ganjadude needs to get back on the ganja...
Destructive device is what the ATF uses, so I was rather surprised that was not standardized upon.
Yeah, lawyers love to sound important.
This makes every explosive the US has ever dropped a "weapon of mass destruction" and means we maintain "weapon of mass destruction fields" between North and South Korea. I say they call it what it is: an explosive device, three murders, several attempted murders, criminal chaos/criminal mischief, assaults with a deadly weapon, conspiracy to murder, etc. There's no reason to go from calling just nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons WMD to making every air force pilot in the world a war criminal just to bust this guy.
"If the president does it that means it's not illegal!"
- An honest man.
The law seems to love sensationalizing terms relating to weapons.
Semiautomatic rifle with a vaguely military appearance? Assault rifle! (which more properly refers to fully-automatic rifles)
Any fully-automatic weapon? Machine gun! (which more properly refers to big belt-fed weapons and the like)
An explosive device? Weapon of mass destruction! (which more properly refers to a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon)
He should just be charged with what he did:
Killing x people, Wounding y people,
Exploding a bomb with intent to endanger life,
Conspiracy to commit a terrorist act.
Sll the rest is bollocks, MFG, omb
Ah, so one rule for the common folk, and one rule for the elites. And you're OK with that?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Grandstanding and penis waving by prosecutors trying to get as much publicity as possible out of this.
This is not a trial for justice, it's a freaking side show and is already going off the rails.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
He's going to criminal court because he's an American who did a crime on American soil. As much as I think the whole "mass destruction" charge is hysteria-induced bullshit, I'm very thankful he's not being declared an "enemy combatant" to be shipped off to a military prison.
+1 Disagree
Killing 3 people and maiming 234 using explosives and shrapnel counts as mass destruction in my book. Thanks for asking, though.
I see your 3 and raise you 66,000; looks like you lose.
In 1946, the Manhattan Engineer District published a study that concluded that 66,000 people were killed at Hiroshima out of a population of 255,000. Of that number, 45,000 died on the first day and 19,000 during the next four months. In addition, "several hundred" survivors were expected to die from radiation-induced cancers and lukemia over the next 30 years. (This report is also known as the Oughterson Commission study.)
Oh, but they'll call it a "mass shooting" or describe it as "mass casualties".
Of course they'll describe the pistol magazines as "high capacity" even though they are standard capacity for the firearm. The idea is to spin the event or item to make it sound more scary than it is.
"mass shooting" > "shooting"
"mass casualties" > "casualties"
"high capacity magazine" > "magazine"
"weapon of mass destruction" > "bomb"
"Lame" - Galaxar
And why not pat him on the back and say "good job, you've successfully terrorized us"?
The correct way to deal with this is to charge him with the least impressive-sounding (and hence least rewarding) charges, and take the highest ground possible while still punishing him and sending a strong message to others, rather than suggesting that we're a nation of panicky twits who want to be terrorized so badly we'll terrorize ourselves.
Why don't they use something similar to the Richter scale for explosives, instead of subjective phrases which can change with the winds of time and fickle emotions.
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
Plea bargaining nullifies the whole justice system, and I would argue that they are a 6th amendment violation. Coercion of a guilty plea through threatening more serious charges (that may not hold up in court) effectively deprives the accused of a fair trial.
Also plea bargaining requires perjury of both the prosecutor and the accused which further lowers respect for the law.
If someone did something wrong then they should get a fair and public trail and be punished if found guilty. A back room deal to confess to lesser charges after getting intimidated for hours/days by cops and prosecutors is the polar opposite of fair and public.
Seriously? You really think Bostonians will riot if this guy is sent to prison for the rest of his life? That's not even remotely credible.
Have you ever lived in Boston? I have. The people are not all upper crust Brahmins, but they're not savages either.
When it's semi-automatic, sure... I mean anything more than a breech loading musket is obviously a weapon of mass destruction. Damn self-cocking revolvers, slippery slope indeed...
/sarcasm
Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
I'm not too familiar with definitions or jargon but is this an example of "powning" someone?
Perhaps you should write to your high school English teacher and ask about the term "loaded phrase" if you don't understand what calling nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons used to kill or injure tens of thousands of people "weapons of mass destruction" for decades and then adding this pressure cooker full of black powder that only killed 3 people in a tightly populated area means for the phrase.
And they don't die, that's simply 'dissent'?
WMD in a military context is different than WMD in a civilian criminal law context. There is nothing unusual about that. This is much like there being different standards of treatment under the law of war versus criminal law. The confusion on this point has led to much heated discussion and misunderstanding.
This video is a representation of the US federal government shooting down Americans en mass without arrest, charge, trial, or conviction. The use of civilian criminal law to address this situation is problematic to say the least. Under military law, it is both legal and completely justified.
The rules are different depending on the situation: is it war, or law enforcement? Sometimes it is clearly law enforcement and criminal law. Sometimes it is clearly war and the law of war. There are some situations, mainly low level conflicts, that could be covered under either, although there can be significant trade-offs when using one versus the other. The war against al Qaida is effectively split. Outside the US it is generally being treated as law of war, inside as criminal law.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
what is so wrong with seeking justice? Some of us dont have any issue with an eye for an eye in extreme cases. I would put this in one of those cases. I didnt know wanting justice for a city is the same as someone who blew up said city. Its kinda sad that you reached that conclusion simply because I want justice.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Something tells me the US Military is well aware of what they drop on people and what they were accusing Saddam Hussein of possessing. It wasn't merely that he was alleged to have them, but that he was alleged to have them in contravention of some treaty, wasn't it? The issue wasn't about the items, but about the treaty or punishment or whatever not being followed.
new job, cant do it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I would think one first degree murder would be sufficient, or just all three. These mega-cases otherwise cost tens of millions and take years.
Ditto for the Colorado theater shooter. The judge announced yesterday they will summon a 5000 person jury pool. In that county you have a 2% chance of getting a summons. There are a 150 charges against the guy. Just one first degree conviction would get him Death.
If you're going to play semantics, "Mass Destruction" is not equivalent to "Mass Murder". Hell, you don't even need 1 dead person for destruction to happen.
well yes, When you are in the military you have a higher code and more restrictions than the civilians, if it were the other way around id have an issue but with a VOLUNTARY military, i dont see any issue with how its done
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Problem is, not every case is clear cut - and cases that appear clear cut at the beginning can get convoluted pretty quickly. If we are going to allow the state to take the life of a citizen, we absolutely want that option to be the most costly. The Justice system does make mistakes.
+1 Disagree
I have, and i was there, in the city not at the race. Everyone I know wants him dead, anything less will be an outrage. There are one or 2 people I know who dont want him dead, thats it.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?
Yes, I would. It would be much less likely that someone else could repeat it.
If you do attempt to kill someone, society as a whole is better off if you use a more precise and controllable weapon.
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
If you read this carefully I think you will find adequate scope to cover it.
SEC. 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.
Thank you for playing.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
You are not seeking justice, only vengeance.
As long as he gets a fair trial (and by fair I mean a death sentence)
I for one am elated that you are not allowed to define what is meant by a "fair trial."
+1 Disagree
1) Drop the 'o' so it's spelled 'pwning'
2) Nah, I don't consider someone PWND unless I'm carpeting them with solid burns like the archangels at Sodom and Gomorrah.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
One of the most important, but often overlooked, points of 1984 was how Government uses language as a weapon. If a "Weapon of Mass Destruction" is defined as any bomb, why use the term in some cases but not others? It's emotional manipulation, it's thought policing through language.
Would you like that definition of mass destruction to keep being used? A car accident (or an accident involving a car, like being in a fire and then exploding) could qualify. Being charged for terrorism because you were the owner of that car could not be nice, and even if not, having a lot of accidental car explosions labeled as terrorist threats will help a lot the current government agenda.
If you look at the laws themselves it's a bit weird; 18 USC sec. 2332a seems to introduce the term "weapons of mass destruction" for the sole purpose of re-naming a definition provided in 18 USC sec. 921 called "destructive device," which dates to 1934 at the latest. I'm not savvy enough to figure out when the "WMD" terminology was introduced, but it's at least older than 1996 and seems to serve no purpose other than sounding grandiose.
This is why laws should not be permitted to be introduced except that first one cubic inch of flesh and blood should be removed from the legislator's body.
Dead is dead. Murder is murder. If a person deliberately murders someone, we don't need 137 different types of murder law to charge the offender on, just one. Adding more anti-murder laws is grandiose at best and at worst may end up in creating legal loopholes that a broader definition would not.
The death penalty is anything but cheap, if you factor in the huge fixed costs of actually having one, not to mention endless chains of appeals. Ditto, supermax.
Besides, death is exactly what these asshats want. Locking scum up, like this Chechan piece of shit, in supermax without even means to kill himself, is an appropriate punishment.
Not so much, no. To use an American expression, he tossed me a softball, even if inadvertently.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
If you own a pressure cooker and a box of nails, you are obviously in possession of the means for making a weapon of mass destruction.
Of course. Captain Obvious here. Is that supposed to shake anybody up? In an armed conflict, massively destroying enemy installations and personnel is a matter of course.
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
If you read this carefully I think you will find adequate scope to cover it.
SEC. 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.
Thank you for playing.
You're really trying to say that killing children who weren't even fucking born on 9/11/2001 is justified?
Goddamn, we knew you were a statist, but this... this is just fucked, man. You need serious mental counselling.
No sarc.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
How come the media never covered this important fact?
Decidedly not. What has that to do with definitions of terms?
We invaded Iraq because they supposedly had WMDs. If the US has WMDs, they should be invaded as well, right?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
you left out "assault weapon"
Justice is when he is tried for his crimes, found guilty in a court of law, and penalized according to a sentence by a judge. Just killing him is simply mob action. As a moral point, going the whole trial business is what makes us better than him. As a practical point, while he's alive we can learn things from him, whereas dead men tell no tales.
I am officially gone from
I'm no fan of the death penalty myself, but calling ganjadude's request as morally repugnant as the bomber's actions is laughable.
Killing one individual in response to his murder and maiming of several innocents is a far lesser evil than what he did.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Isn't he up for the death penalty? While I don't object to the prosecution pushing every charge they think they have a chance to make stick in this case, you're typically not allowed to plead guilty to something with the DP.
Unless they're willing to let him plea down to only life in prison w/o parole.
I don't read AC A human right
Congress hasn't declared war since World War II.
The point is that it was during the course of armed conflict. The simple fact is that no one has succeeded in having the armed conflict ruled illegal. Not before the Supreme Court or any other agency which has true jurisdiction.
The issue wasn't about the items, but about the treaty or punishment or whatever not being followed.
My view on the reasons for the 2nd Iraq war.
1. Bush wanting to finish what his father started.
2. Saddam was *constantly* violating the terms of the cease fire. Violating no-fly zones, hiding things, moving troops where he wasn't supposed to, etc... I deployed to Kuwait during that period, we were dropping bombs constantly to enforce the rules.
3. An honest desire to 'clean up' the mess of the past; not create another NK situation. The idea(that didn't pan out nearly as well as hoped) was to lance the problem so we don't need military bases sitting around the area 50 years later.
4. Possible WMDs. And yes, I count WMD as 'Nuclear, biological, Chemical'. Or if you insist on the newer termology: "Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear". On the world stage, countries don't typically worry about other countries having conventional explosives - have all the 500-2000 pound bombs, mortar and artillery shells, and everything else you want. They worry about WMD. A conventional bomb built into a pressure cooker shouldn't be considered a WMD because it dilutes the term.
I don't read AC A human right
It shows.
I think they should refer to the bombs used in this case Weapons of Mass Hysteria. They cause more hysteria than actual destruction. McVeigh's fertilizer bomb was a better candidate for destruction.
I don't think he was suggesting that the system goes through all the legal steps which are indeed extremely costly, as the document you linked to details.
But if the guy got shot dead in the mean time by a random citizen who makes a clean getaway, how would the cost of that + the fallout from it compare to the costs of the trials+either death penalty or life imprisonment?
Not advocating somebody do this - just saying that this is the more likely match to what GP was saying.
They are not the same, that is the of talk that leads to this sort of behavior.
Of course not.
so we can now declare the Zippo as a weapon of mass destruction.
I wasnt saying no trial by any means. I am a firm believer in the rule of law. I am simply saying that there is no justification not to find him guilty and put him to death.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So did the fellow actually admit (and plausibly so) to the crime? How about you wait to see if he's actually guilty before spouting of about how you want to kill him.
Innocent until proven guilty is a good idea, even if you aren't a court. Without it, you end up with innocents being lynched because of false witness.
HELP MY ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HACKED BY AN ILLIBERAL ART STUDENT SET TO DESTROY THE INTERWEBZ!
I believe the bomber thought something similar. That his crime was less so than what others had done.
Ganjadude's suggestion is in someways worse in that he wants to make us all share in his murder.
It definitely doesn't count, in my book. You post-cold-war kids are so cute. Did you know the band Megadeth got their name from something that was believed to be reasonably likely could happen? 237 casualties isn't even a blip on the WMD scale. WMDs are for serious scale murder.
Exaggeration sounds like good idea when you're going after a specific bad guy, but it reminds me of how "registered sex offender" used to mean "rapist" and now, for all you know, it can mean some kid who sext-messaged his girlfriend or maybe even got drunk and peed on a parking meter.
Overbroad terminology abuse will remove stigma. Now the next time someone wants to start a hideously expensive war over alleged WMDs, the public will say "why should I care if Saddam II has a hand grenade?"
Hmm... now that I think of it, this could save us a shitload of money. Ok, you've convinced m-- wait, what if Saddam II actually has (oldschool definition) WMDs? Are we going to need a new term that means the same as WMD used to mean, like "WMDs, no I mean for real, 'Threads' and 'The Day After' style, dude!"?
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
There's legitimacy in identifying it as a distinctive act—if someone sets off a bomb in a public place that is supposed to kill thousands of people, but by fluke it only kills one, you'd have to put the perpetrator down for... how many attempted murders? And of whom? Plus that ignores the possible property damage. The way the law is written, 18 USC sec. 2332a is more of a summary of damages, actual and potential, than some pigeonhole that crimes have to be sandwiched into. In the Tsarnaev case it was added on top of the murder charges. This is another crime separate from those acts.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
...
There may be some validity with what youre saying, but in ANY court system any prosecutor can threaten to charge you with any crime.
The defense you have is that the legal system is designed to figure out which charges apply and you are guilty of. I guess you could make a prosecutor have a stake in the game by going after them if the defendent is ruled innocent, but that seems to create a system where noone wants to be a prosecutor.
Can you imagine a situation where noone wants to charge a mafia boss because theyre not 100% sure that he wont get off on a technicality, and the prosecution becomes liable for significant penalties?
Of course, we were at war, and a war that we didnt even start and took pains to stay out of, so I think there might be some difference there.
Don't use a musket, though. Firearms over .50 qualify as WMDs too.
No, you simply can't know in advance if a case is clear cut. You don't want to take the chance that the guy who everybody "knows" did it is innocent. Let some bad guys get away with it if that's what it takes, but take great care that you don't put an innocent guy away (or worse- to death).
I won't say you're not entitled to your opinion on this matter, but lucky for our society, the courts agree with me. Also, lucky for you if you're ever wrongfully accused of a crime.
+1 Disagree
Actually the real reason so few died is because there were dozens of medics standing by at the end of the race course anyways.
They were doing medical triage on site 30 seconds after the explosions. That is why only three died. It is also why only those in desperate need were being rushed to the hospital.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Is there any rational point to your comparison of scale? It doesn't seem to me that "he could have killed tens or hundreds of thousands; therefore 3 dead and over 200 injured do not count" is very rational.
The death penalty is anything but cheap, if you factor in the huge fixed costs of actually having one, not to mention endless chains of appeals. Ditto, supermax.
You bring up a good point here. Most of the studies I've seen that say the death penalty is more expensive than LiP assume 'average prisoner cost'. Outside of Texas at least, DP cases tend to be limited to the 'worst of the worst', meaning that they aren't going to have 'average prisoner cost'. Whether in Death Row or Supermax, they're going to be more costly to maintain.
Then there's end of life expenses. What happens when the prisoner hits 65 and needs some operation costing hundreds of thousands and/or continuous drugs costing thousands a year(like my mom, and she's not that old yet).
Finally, while I support having a death penalty, I also want it to be rare. My 'standard' is that death penalty trials should be around 1% of murder trials. Rare enough that a prosecutor might be lead on ONE of them a career. That allows you to make an argument that financial cost isn't the point, or that there are special circumstances. Call it the "Joker Clause" if you will. It's when you have an individual that's so dangerous that killing him is the safer alternative. If you're not doing that many, you can afford to streamline the process and only go for the DP when there's plenty of evidence.
I don't read AC A human right
He thought it was a lesser crime than whom? The people he had bombed? If so, he was objectively wrong. If we can't make that judgement, then there's no point in ever seeking justice in the first place.
As I understand ganjadude's suggestion he wanted the victims of the bomber to do the killing. If so then it is still much better than what the bomber did. I doubt few if any of his victims had a direct hand in killing or maiming Muslims. And definitely not him specifically.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Yep. Just like the military can't use tear gas on enemies but the police can use tear gas on protesters. In short, fuck "purposes" and "law practice". How about having some outrage about the absurdity of "purpose" overriding sensibility, about having near doublethink acceptance of the charges, or using "it is how it is" as some sort of valid excuse?
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
It does not matter if he was wrong or right, it is the same kind of perverted logic.
That is just vengeance. At that point why have justice at all? We can just let lynch mobs settle everything.
People are such pedantic dumbasses. The international definition of a WMD is _different_ from the domestic criminal code definition. Is that really so whacky and inscrutable?
To the DoD a WMD is a chemical, biological, or nuclear weapon. To the FBI, it's a bomb.
Easy peasy.
My apologies, I should have looked at your first link and I didn't. So now I will address it: you need better sources of information.
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”
He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.
Since this conflict is likely to continue for at least another 10, maybe as many as 40 years, eventually the US will have to face jihadis that have taken up arms against the West (including the US) that weren't born before 9/11/2001. If it hasn't happened yet, it probably will within another 4-5 years. It makes no difference, the qualifier is taking up arms against the US and the West, not birthdate. If we were to stop defending ourselves doesn't mean they would stop attacking. Al Qaida's goal is to restore the Islamic Caliphate that was dissolved in 1923 after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, replace the national government in Muslim countries with strict Islamist governments, conquer the world for Islam to rule, convert the people to Islam, and governments to Sharia law. The fact that it might seem to be nonsense to us doesn't mean that isn't an important goal to them. Keep your eyes on Europe - there is a good chance that in 30 years time it will be facing civil war.
Personally I would like to see the size and scope of the federal government reduced. However national defense is the responsibility of the national government.
I like you sig, but your ideas and understanding of the issue could use some work. I understand you mean well.
The Left Hates Conservatives
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
as long as he is left lifeless in the end.
Easy there, ganjadude. Personally, I'd like to see the guy rot in a cell.
Keeping people alive to make them think about what they've done seems far more just to me than letting them escape their guilty conscience.
I think one of the major arguments in favor of the death penalty in cases like this is it makes it more difficult for some idiot somewhere to take hostages and then demand "Dzhokhar Tsarnaev must be released!".
Also, you should realize that the death penalty is often misapplied in the U.S., in part due to prosecutorial over-charging for a single crime in order to get something to stick. I'm pretty all right with Ted Bundy being dead, but I think it would be difficult to move with the speed that Utah moved with in order to get him executed in the present day climate.
The reason for a penalty that severe is NOT to punish the offender; it's to deter the rest of society from acting the same way in the future. If the family and victims of the criminal feel good afterwords, so much the better, but frankly the punishment isn't being enacted for their benefit, it's being enacted to benefit everyone.
I also doubt that, despite having killed 30 young women, and having decapitated 12 of them and kept their heads around his apartment for prolonged period of time, applying makeup and grooming their hair, that we would be able to execute him via electric chair, since that's considered a "cruel and unusual punishment" these days (but realize that, while cruel, it would not be "and unusual" if we used the method a bit more often, and therefore would not fit the technicality which currently keeps the method from being used these days).
If executions were more of a public spectacle, they would both serve a stronger deterrent purpose, and force people to acknowledge what the government is doing in their name -- both of which would likely have net positive effects on society at large.
Best. New. Political. System. EVAR!!!!!
Seems to be how most companies are run, too.
Why would you want to strike any kind of a deal with this dirtbag!? The guy has done a terrible deed, admitted so to multiple witnesses, wrote a confession note. Plus they have a boatload of forensic evidence.
Of *course* it matters whether he was right or wrong. You're comparing two actions as being on the same moral level. Killing for a perceived wrong that is false is worse than killing for a homicide that actually happened. It has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in the death penalty.
Punishment is a part of justice. It's just a matter of how harsh the punishment and how methodically you seek justice that decides whether or not it is "vengeance".
Happy people make bad consumers.
Amen. Taking somebody's life judicially is very, very serious business, and I feel, appropriate for the absolute worst cases, e.g. genocide and waging war against your own country (and I don't mean this Mickey Mouse shit, where a couple of disaffected and misguided young men let off pipe bombs which kill a few passers-by, I'm speaking serious existential threats to our way of life and moral order).
OTOH, when you open a newspaper here, and read about the huge number of people being put to death for serious, albeit not devastatingly terrible crimes, one has to wonder if it's always the case that punishment genuinely fits the crime. And interestingly in states where conservative moral values hold sway, and with lots of people of the ostensibly "pro life" POV, where a woman taking RU486 is a terrible thing, but in the same breath, are sending hordes of poor urban blacks to death row at great expense, presumably 'for the lulz'. Texas is about to rack up 500 executions since 1974. To my untrained ear, that sounds like a lot.
Imposing the death penalty isn't cheap nor should it be cheap.
The burden of proof for capital cases also needs to be extremely high. Miscarriages of justice do happen, and it's very hard to apologise and pay compensation to somebody who's dead...
To paraphrase Chris Rock....
Ladies and Gentlemen, the american white man is afraid. He was afraid of the indians, so he killed them, he was afraid of the black man, so he enslaved him, and now he is afraid of the arab, so he is attacking him.
I'm sure i got that badly wrong, but couldn't find a youtube clip of it, but i agree with Chris Rock on this, the US Leadership (and possibly a substantial part of the population since they don't get up in arms about what their government is doing), is afraid. They are afraid of losing their suburban homes, with their 2 cars and 2 kids with their McDonlands and their comfy lifestyle... strangely enough, it seems like the biggest danger to the US is the US itself, with its economic and foreign policies.
Been saying it for 10 or more years now, the US is the new Rome. Its just a matter of time before the empire eats itself from within and there are Visgoths at the gates.
It does not matter. For no reason should he have blown up that marathon. If you think their could be justification for such action you are beyond help.
Your last sentence is not worth a reply, if that is what you believe we cannot have a meaningful discussion. Have a nice day.
If you are deranged or evil enough and you go to a crowded public square, pick a particular moment (particular crowd), and start turning in a circle shooting with your semi automatic rifle with no particular aiming, you are no more or less effectively discriminating who you are killing and maiming than if you went to the same square and placed a small bomb and waited for a particular moment (particular crowd). You don't know the people in either case, and you in either case "discriminated" (picked) the general group that would be targeted, by your timing and observation.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
No definition of mass destruction applies to what happened in Boston.
More people and property damage has been done using a single bullet or a single baseball bat or knife than the tiny explosive devices used in Boston.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
as I said, not ALL cases, not even most cases, but the .001 cases that ARE clear cut, why waste the money?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Well I guess the MythBusters have been using WMD's all along.
I guess they are in big trouble now.
so what do YOU propose be done in this case?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The term "WMD" was intended to distinguish certain weapons of "mass destruction" from other conventional weapons, for instance conventional bunker-busting bombs. With respect to military weapons, a convention explosive bomb capable of leveling a three story building is not considered a WMD. WMD was meant to describe weapons such as thermonuclear bombs, mass chemical and biological agents, etc.
It appears we no longer have a useful term to refer to weapons which cause "mass destruction." Apparently, a couple of ounces of low-velocity explosive packed inside a metal container one can acquire at Walmart now meet the qualification. This is ludicrous.
So you become automatically bullet proof if you're holding a gun now?
And I guess the cop deaths where they go armed against other armed criminals don't prove you wrong, because, huh?
so me wanting the man who did this to boston to get the justice he deserves (death) is somehow worse than what he did. I am sorry , we dont always agree (in fact i see you argue my posts quite often) but that is just bat shit crazy to equate wanting to give justice to those hurt to be worse than what has happened. You are the sick one if you think that, not me
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It's not about justification. We're debating whether one action is more immoral than another. In one corner is killing a single guilty individual for killing and maiming several innocents. In the other is maiming and killing several innocents at random. You sure are putting a lot of effort into making a simple choice complicated to keep from admitting you're wrong.
The statement "punishment is a part of justice" is not worth a reply? For Christ's sake! It's not even all that controversial. And then you cut off the discussion there.
When did you decide you must always be right and not bother listening to other's opinions? It must be so awful for you to always be so right with nothing new to learn.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Your statements are not what most people would call justice. Most people take it very seriously to have to take someones life from them and are willing to give them all the chances they need at "appeals and extra bullshit".
I'm speculating here, but I think you would be surprised how few (if any) of the victims of this guy would actually want to pull the trigger on a firing squad to execute this man. They were marathon runners in Boston, not exactly blood thirsty revenge types.
What about a "firebomb"? Because of the offices of the woman who recently filibustered the Texas Senate over an abortion bill were firebombed. I don't see Texas in lockdown and performing a house to house search for THAT terrorist!
"Any explosive device" could include the gasoline tank in your car. So therefore, EVERYONE IN 'MURICA has a weapon of mass destruction in their driveway or parked on the street, right?
Got a propane BBQ grill? WMD. Got a can of starting fluid? WMD. How about hairspray? Powdered non-dairy creamer? Under this definition, I probably have a dozen, maybe two dozen WMDs in my home, and so do the rest of you. Everyone is a perp, a potential terrorist and a criminal.
No wonder the NSA is spying on everyone; because according to the government, you're all guilty of high crimes against the people of the United States, and you should all be incarcerated. Notice how you're the victim and the perp at the same time. Makes things nice and convenient.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
I am not putting in much effort at all. Killing people is wrong, is that so hard for you to grasp? He thought he was justified to do that, and you think you are justified to kill him for that. I disagree with both of you.
Justice does not always require punishment. If you want to think I am wrong feel free. It is very controversial thing, I would much rather have this guy live to see what he did was wrong than just punish him.
I have a lot to learn. I do not need to learn to kill humans or to find justice in such a thing. I am not always right, this is one of the few times.
I would say the part that is worse is that you want me to join in your murder. At least the bomber did not want me to participate. What he did was horrible, what you want to do is not much different.
I disagree that this is justice. I can see a desire for justice, but this is not it.
The boston bomber should be accused of using an explosive device to commit mass murder and mayhem.
So a Weapon of Mass Murder and Mayhem then? Is that really so different from destruction?
Uhhh, maybe you've forgotten this bit of American History, where we killed 1.4 Million civillians.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
Incarceration, if possible rehabilitation.
Nothing you do will bring those people back, or bring any form of justice out of this. There is no value in killing more people. I can understand a desire for vengeance, but I cannot support it.
Didn't they have pressure cookers in Iraq? That would have avoided Bush's great fiasco.
I hadn't the slightest objection to his spending his time planning massacres for the bourgeoisie... (P.G. Wodehouse)
You misunderstand me. I don't believe in the death penalty either. I'm just taking exception to whether one act is as morally repugnant as the other. It is bad reasoning to say the two are on the same level, imo. If you tried to convince someone who is for the death penalty by saying that you're going to lose them fast.
To me making someone feel the full effect of their actions, the people they hurt and their loved ones, is the most awful punishment there is. The best one too. If only it were simple to do that.
Happy people make bad consumers.
Destruction is a pretty heavy term. Mass destruction should be set aside for around the tens of thousands dead / hundreds of thousands injured level, or hundreds of millions to billions of dollars in damage level.
This is what I would call moderate destruction, if only to account for injuries. The monetary damages do not warrant even a moderate rating. (Ignoring the insane medical bills due to our shitty healthcare system[Getting one leg amputated probably costs you the other one.])
but I guess we call it mass murder at the 4 person mark in the US... so whatever. I guess by that standard it did cause destruction en masse.
That still seems too convoluted to me. I'd just go with:
Killing X people, Wounding Y people, Attepting to kill Z people.
Anything else is just going after him for his motivation and/or his choice of tools.
With an X of even 1 that SHOULD be enough for the maximum punishments possible so even analyze it beyond that?
you want to rehabilitate the person who attacked a major city in the name of religion?? I am sorry but I am done arguing with you. If you dont think he should pay for his crimes and want to make him better there is nothing I can say or do to convince you you are wrong (you are) and as such are not worth my time. Have a good day. if he gets rehabilitated, you will let him live with you right? i mean theres no danger anymore correct??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
sigh, im just saying that it is a clear cut case and should proceed smooth rather than be held hostage by a defense team with money to spend and time to kill.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
onyl cheeper if you consider all the appeals and extra bullshit that most on death row push for. In a clear cut case like this, just hang him and be done with it.
"Liberty and justice for all... unless I have to pay for it in taxes. In that case, kill em all, let God sort em out."
. Killing people is wrong, is that so hard for you to grasp?
so you are against abortion than right? You cant have it both ways. ALL murder is wrong, as you say or SOME murder is ok
(yes I know this is flamebait, mod me as such if you wish)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
One wonders why it took politicians so long to come up with this "War on terrorists, not a nation" excuse. Plenty of them have been pretty brilliant, and I gather that we've always been this stupid, I can't imagine anyone objecting to a "war on communism" during the McCarthy trials.
Yes. "Weapon of mass destruction" has an understood meaning. To me its like calling a bus an aircraft. True it does travel though the air, but not in the manner we associate with the term "aircraft".
A pipe bomb does not cause "mass destruction", so using the word "mass destruction" is confusing.
If we call a pipe bomb a "weapon of mass destruction", what term would we use for a nuke that killed 100,000 people?
I hope they don't kill him although I'm sure that will be the outcome. Please, don't mistake this for any sort of sympathy. With a death penalty he gets to stay in isolation until he runs out of appeals and then they have to get rid of him humanely.
I would rather see someone who comits an act like this get to go hang out with the general population of a very hard prison for as long as he can last. Everyone will know exactly who he is and why he is there. If I were the warden I might even be sure to let the other prisoners know that anyone who kills him is going to have a very hard time afterward. I wouldn't say a damn thing about what happens to someone who does anything less than kill him though.
By all means I want to see him get a fair trial. Not giving him one would only introduce doubt as to his guilt anyway. But... does anyone really believe he has any chance of being declared innocent?
I never said any of that.
You should try less pot.
I would like to see all people who do these things rehabilitated. That does not mean releasing them.
This is why people want drugs to stay illegal. It clearly has damaged your mind.
All murder is wrong. Abortion is not the ending of a human life and as such not murder. No more than a miscarriage. While I would never support abortion for me and mine unless their was a medical need, I am not suggesting it be illegal.
wrong and right do matter ,not ALL murder is equal, some is reasonable, Example if you raped my sister, It would be reasonable to murder you for it. (even if the law disagrees)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I guess my wife's meat loaf would fall into that category as well.
Have gnu, will travel.
My issue is that making me take part in this murder, as a member of our nation, is what makes this so morally repugnant. If he wanted to murder him without involving me that would make it less morally repugnant to me than the bombing was.
That is why I wanted him rehabilitated. So he could see what he has done. So he has to live with that for the rest of his days. It is not easy, nothing worthwhile is.
I get it, you are blood thirsty, you can stop commenting now.
No murder is reasonable. If you did that you would again be seeking vengeance, not justice. You clearly have trouble telling those two things apart.
To make it more clear for your feeble mind.
I want him to be able to realize what he has done, and have to live with that for many decades. Death would mean he ceases to exist, he would not suffer, he would never know he was wrong, he would never grow old in a cell.
You are correct
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
So, you KNOW FOR A FACT that he is guilty, eh?
Will you, as a favour to the rest of us, provide us the facts that you have personally verified that demonstrate his guilt?
Personally, I'll wait for the trial before I declare ANYONE guilty....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Until the trial, the "facts" that we know are:
1) someone set off some bombs in Boston.
2) someone thinks this idiot is the "someone" in (1) above.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
There's no way a pressure pot bomb could kill thousands. There was no fluke. This is what this type of bomb is capable of.
Probably not, but the entire system has been so corrupted by plea bargaining that I wouldn't actually be surprised. I'll agree that it's stupid and silly, but when there are enough stupid and silly laws, and adverse incentives, then all sorts of stupid and silly things happen. As well as all sorts of malicious and brutal things.
Plea bargaining should be totally ripped out of the system. It is a vile corruption. And it is one of the factors in causing a huge number of vile laws. (Not that I think it's a major factor, just one of them. Legislators don't normally think about plea bargaining, but it's a part of the background environment. Did you know that conspiracy to JayWalk is a felony? It is where I live (unless JayWalking has been reduced from a misdemeanor to an infraction).
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I never asked "you" to be a part of it, unless that is you are a runner who was there and hurt by the bomb.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The point is that it was during the course of armed conflict. The simple fact is that no one has succeeded in having the armed conflict ruled illegal. Not before the Supreme Court or any other agency which has true jurisdiction.
Yea, that's just a function of a completely corrupted system: they'll all always agree that whatever powers they want to give themselves are just. They could be using drones to murder Americans by the thousands, and would insist that the unconstitutional "laws" they've passed legally justify the action. Doesn't make it true.
Hence the reason that the Constitution lays out what powers the government actually has so specifically.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
But if the guy got shot dead in the mean time by a random citizen who makes a clean getaway, how would the cost of that + the fallout from it compare to the costs of the trials+either death penalty or life imprisonment?
Considering that said random citizen would then be placed on trial for a number of charges, not nearly as inexpensive as you probably think; that would basically be moving the main show from one circus ring to another.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Let's consolidate this so people aren't confused.
Cool, so when does the President go on trial for authorizing the murder of civilians using WMDs?
Sorry, that is BS. Apparently you didn't read my post carefully. Hellfire missiles are not WMDs in the military context even if they are for US domestic criminal law. So, suggesting that the President is using WMDs is nonsense. It would also be nonsense domestically in the US since government has the legal authority to use lethal force with weapons not available to civilians. Second, the US isn't deliberately attacking innocent civilian populations. The terrorists do, as did the Boston bomber. Launching a Hellfire missile at a SUV of senior al Qaida or Taliban members traveling down a road isn't going to kill many people other than the intended targets. So third, the 50:1 casualty rate is fiction. If it were true, you would need to find 50,000 dead civilians in the drone attack areas of Pakistan - there would be no way to cover that up. That is obviously nonsense as noted by the Pakistani government spokesman below. That doesn't mean that attacks are never made in error, or that innocent people are never killed. But that is a different question from deliberately targeting them.
Pakistan drone strikes: 2012
Pakistani General: Actually, The Drones Are Awesome
“Myths and rumours about US predator strikes and the casualty figures are many,” Mehmood said, according to Dawn, “but it’s a reality that many of those being killed in these strikes are hardcore elements, a sizeable number of them foreigners.”
He even brought stats. According to the general, “about 164 drone strikes have occurred since 2007 — the New America Foundation tallies 226 since 2004 — have killed “over 964 terrorists.” Of those, 793 were Pakistanis and 171 were foreigners, “including Arabs, Uzbeks, Tajiks, Chechens, Filipinos and Moroccans.” (Filipinos? Huh.) Only “a few civilians” have been killed, he said.
From a wider angle, taking Afghanistan into account, it is the Taliban causing most of the casualties. And you would expect that since one of their key means of attack is bombs and mines placed along roads that kill whomever comes along, as well as bombings in market places, and attacks on institutions like schools. Those are mainly going to kill civilians.
Taliban Causes Most Civilian Deaths in Afghanistan, U.N. Says
Before you respond with any of that , "at war blah blah blah" nonsense, keep in mind that Congress has not declared war on Pakistan.
The SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. is not limited to geographic area. The US government and Pakistan have had an arrangement.
Ex-Pakistani President Musharraf admits secret deal with U.S. on drone strikes
Islamabad, Pakistan (CNN) -- Ex-Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf acknowledged his government secretly signed off on U.S. drone strikes, the first time a top past or present Pakistani official has admitted publicly to such a deal.
Pakistani leaders long have openly challenged the drone program and insisted they had no part in it. Musharraf's admission, though, suggests he and others did play some role, even if they didn't oversee the program or approve every attack.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
The AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES. is legally equivalent to a declaration of war. That is well settled law.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
I'm sure there's lots of explosives of all kind in Iran's military depot. Therefore they own untold millions of weapons of mass destruction, therefore the USA are morally obligated to liberate their country really soon! QED.
My apologies, I should have looked at your first link and I didn't. So now I will address it: you need better sources of information.
... says the guy who links to a Wired article, as if that's the be-all-end-all of reliable sources.
How do you know said Pakistani general isn't a liar? Or perhaps he's taking a U.S. Government style approach, in which every dead body of someone he disagrees with is the dead body of a 'terrorist?'
FWIW, you can cite quotations from all the 'credentialed' people you want, I will never, ever accept the idea that children as young as age 6 deserve to be blown to tiny bits by murder-bots. Whatever happened to, "if it saves even 1 life, it's worth doing?" Oh, right, that only applies to forcing Americans to sacrifice our liberties. How naive of me to think that non-American people over deserve a right to life.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Indeed... Supermax is by far worse than capital punishment.
While I agree with most of what you say, calling him "it" doesn't seem helpful. He's still human and I'm not sure what you hope to achieve by excluding him from the species. Sounds like the kind of language that would get a prosecutor a reproach for turning the court into the kind of circus you've advocated avoiding.
Chalk it up to a language problem (English is not my mother tongue) and/or a repeated typo due to posting in haste. I did not do it intentionally.
With that said, I wouldn't really care much about the way this person is being described in the media or in a blog post. I would care about his treatment in the legal system, and for that I would hope our legal institutions do their jobs (but trumpeting the charges suggest me they might not.) If we are to split hairs on the rhetorical artifacts at hand, would it really had matter if I would use "he" but consistently called him a fucking asshole? The description would have retained his status as a human in the nominal sense, but it is certainly questionable from the point of being civil.
He's also not guilty of anything yet.
I know that, and I wrote what I wrote on purpose. De jure, legally and technically he is not guilty of anything until the jury provides a verdict.
De facto, however, that does not change his condition of being guilty of the crimes committed of which irrefutable evidence abounds. If I pull the trigger on someone on live TV and watched by millions, I'm guilty, regardless of whether a jury gives a verdict in a court of law. By your logic, I would not be guilty.
Obviously we have an ethical obligation in the general case to prefer de jure over de facto, but that in no way prevents the rational and logical discussion of a de facto condition of guilt when the evidence is overwhelming, powerful and pretty much irrefutable.
At this point what we need is to follow the rules of law, without trumpeting charges to stupid levels, so that we formalize a de jure verdict of guilt properly fitting to the de facto guilt and criminal responsibility of this person as testified by the abundance of evidence.
It is that formalization that becomes at risk by exaggerating the charges against Tsarnaev. If Tsarnaev is found not guilty, it will be due to a technicality or an error by the prosecution, not because he is in fact not guilty (not material and morally responsible) for the crimes, the real acts of murder that he was committed or complicit. A technical verdict of not guilty is a real possibility th e
Authorities, please: Let us not make one more mockery out of legal institutions and charge this criminal appropriately.
Don't make a mockery of legal institutions by assuming a suspect's guilt before his trial.
Ok, you win. He didn't do it. He is not a criminal. He didn't shoot anybody. He didn't shoot the cops that were trying to apprehend him. He didn't kidnap anybody. Etc, etc. All is a figment of the imagination, and the moral responsibility of a crime committed with ample witnesses do not materialize until a formality (now being jeopardized by a trumpeted WMD charge) is being completed.
I'm not free to assume his guilt despite the preponderance of evidence. I'm not free to reason on that assumption (and if I'm not neither is the prosecution, a chicken-n-egg kind of thing.)
I'm not free to call up the authorities to stop trumpeting the charges. I'm not free to ask them to please use sensible interpretations of charges. Let us invalidate all this line of reasoning because I dared state my belief that Tsarnaev is a criminal based on the preponderance of evidence instead of amorally waiting on the final verdict (which is in real jeopardy due to the trumpeted WMD charges.)
You sir, are awesome.
Oh but that's right, we're supposed to be morally "superior" right?
What is so difficult to grasp about why it's important to be morally superior to a mass murderer? Why do you speak about that like it's a bad thing?
I went to eat some animal crackers and the box said, "Do not eat if seal is broken." I opened the box and sure enough..
You want the government to kill someone. I as a citizen and voter am therefore involved.
That's class A hypocrisy, then, because the entire state leans so far left that a gentle breeze could knock it into Karl Marx's lap.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
There are only a handful of things that will get you sentenced to death under federal law. Yes, he could be charged with first degree murder, but that wasn't done on the federal level, so the jurisdiction of the commonwealth of Massachusetts would take precedence over federal law there (and there is no death penalty in MA). He can be charged FEDERALLY with nothing else that would be able to get him the death penalty. He wasn't smuggling aliens, did not destroy aircraft, did not perpetrate a drug-related drive-by shooting, didn't kill law enforcement officials, etc. Thus this is the only charge that the federal government can bring against him that could result in the death penalty. It's not about being politically charged - it's about them desiring to be able to kill him, and not having another way to go about it.
For example if I rob a bank and have video and photos of me doing it, have fingerprints on the money, hell lets even say they find the money on me. There is no reason that the trial should go on and on and on, there is no reason I should be able to appeal the conviction when the facts are as clear cut.
Let's say that all that is true, but they also find your daughter kidnapped by the mob and threatened at gunpoint unless you comply. Are you sure you wouldn't want the opportunity to present your side of the story in court, preferably with the help of an attorney, even though everything you said was true?
The trouble with short-cutting a trial because "its obvious he's guilty," is that, ultimately, someone has to decide that he was obviously guilty. These days that somebody is a jury. Most people prefer that to someone in middle management declaring "obvious guilt, no need for a trial."
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
you want to rehabilitate the person who attacked a major city in the name of religion??
Depends. Would you rather have a martyr, or someone actively campaigning against religious attacks?
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
So in short you are outraged that that words and phrases can mean different things in different contexts? I don't think you will get very far with that.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
People are dying in droves in Chicago, but I guess that's ok because they don't use bombs and aren't "terrorists" just "criminals."
The WMD charge is supposed to make this look like something other than just a criminal trial.
Prosecutors always overcharge the accused because 1) they can do it, and 2) it gives them leverage to get a plea bargain approved and avoid going to court and having to pay for an expensive trial. Because of the federal budget woes right now which has caused courts, the U.S. attorneys' offices (the prosecutors), and the federal public defenders' offices to lay off clerks and lawyers (but not judges) they undoubtedly would not want to go to trial given how hugely expensive it would be. But regardless of whether this guy is charged by the feds or the commonwealth of Massachusetts he at a minimum is going to spend his life in prison, probably a supermax. He could be the Unibomber's cellmate whenever the Supreme Court finally abolishes solitary confinement. Perhaps they could compare notes.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
woot! finally, the WMD that caused us to invade Iraq was found, oddly enough, in America, where it was used, under the noses of the NSA who has been spying on us for the last decade.
That is a fail on many fronts by our Government.
Be seeing you...
I don't disagree with any of it.
Not nearly specifically enough to deal with 20th century stupidity, greed, and corruption, clearly. I don't really think any constitution could ever be clear enough to save a nation which has become that stupid, greedy, and corrupt.
So is the St. Patrick's Day corned beef and cabbage I cook in my pressure cooker now a WMD? Or is that WMDP or PWMD? Can I carry an unloaded pressure cooker on a plane? Will DOD, CIA, NPR and CBS drop IED for WMD? Inquiring acronym hunters want to know. He may be guilty as sin but this makes it all sound like the 1938 Moscow show trials meet the Marx brothers doing "who's on first".
Just like the RICO laws resulted in an ever-widening definition of "conspiracy", or corporations becoming more and more "people" over time.
Table-ized A.I.
If you murder the murderer, then you are no better than the murderer himself.
fine dont involve the government, just release him in the center of fenway and let boston handle it. I didnt want to rely on the mob, I wanted it to go through the law, but if you are so butthurt about it let the mob handle it
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
So that makes it better how?
Why would you think that is something that I would be more likely to accept?
If anything that shows you are simply bloodthirsty as I stated earlier. It does not even cross your mind to find another punishment, which again means you have no interest in justice.
Lol, you try so hard, grasshopper. Just leave it, you've been pwned enough for one day by the guy you're responding to. Just, let it go, statist.
I really think you're missing the point. The issue scales down just as well; if the bomb had killed no one, it would still be criminal to set it off in a public place because it's dangerous and there is intent to cause harm.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
there is no other punishment that fits the crime. unless you want me to torture him, but im sure you dont want me to go that far
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I wasnt asking if it should be illegal, i dont say it should be either, but i am against it. so at least you are consistent. i will give you that
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
It seems to me that the civilian definition is grossly inflated, for what reasons I can only guess, and like none of them.
i never said short cut the trial, i said dont allow the appeals and the such if it is in fact the way it looks and end it quick after trial. HUGE difference.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
yeah but this is a federal trial, not state, so he can be killed, and should be, if he isnt as i said before i can see riots in boston
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I simply disagree with that.
Life in prison, with rehabilitation so he can understand his actions is far better.
Why is this a punishment anyway? He will simply cease to exist. He will not suffer, he will not age, he will never know what he did was wrong.
Again, this is not punishment or justice, just bloodlust.
why rehab them if you are not going to release them? just as you dont want to spend money to kill them,(through taxes, that WAS your argument correct?) I dont want to spend money to keep them alive
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Oh, it's quite specific - the problem is, we have a decent-sized contingent of people in this country who are convinced (or have been convinced) that the Constitution is a "Living Document," in the sense that the terminology updates as our language evolves; a prime example of this behavior is evident in the anti-gun activists who insist on using the modern definition of the term 'regulation,' i.e. 'strangled with bureaucratic red tape,' as opposed to honoring the spirit of the document by adhering to the definition of the term at the time the Constitution was written, i.e. something 'well-regulated' was properly functioning, like a clock that kept perfect time.
We have never, in our history, lived up to the lofty ideals set forth in the Constitution. While some find that as a reason to whine and/or insist on "modernizing" the document (which is really just a sneaky way of tricking us into giving up our liberties), I see it as a challenge: We should, as a society, spend every year attempting to inch closer to the concepts put forth by our fore fathers; the idea that all people have a right to be treated equally under the law; that liberty means having every right in the world so long as what you want to do doesn't infringe the right of others to do the same; the dream of a justice system that metes out true justice, and doesn't punish the lower classes more harshly than those who can afford to pay their way out. At the moment, we appear to be moving in the wrong direction; however, as history shows, public attitudes and consensus exist on the end of a pendulum, and mark my words, there will be a swing back.
All just a matter of time.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
In general, I agree with the sentiment that there are some people who are cruel, bloodthirsty sadists who are best dealt with by the most extreme penalties available.
The trouble is how do you define what those limits are? Furthermore, how can you be sure that whatever definition you use is not distorted by some unscrupulous government agent at some point in the future?
This line of thinking is why I am categorically against the death penalty. The ability to kill its own citizens is too great of a power to willingly grant something as big and clumsy as the government. Once the government is given such a power, it will use it inappropriately at some point, pretty much guaranteed.
It always surprises me how many of the hard-core, anti-government conservatives are still pro death penalty...
You just couldn't resist getting a dig in at Bush.
If the courts agreed with you they wouldn't accept plea bargains. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty, and an extorted confession is never proof of guilt.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
call it what you will, its not bloodlust, if bloodlust was all i was after id be begging to kill him myself. I simply want him to get what he deserves after he is proven guilty. the punishment should fit the crime, and IMO the punishment should be death.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If executions were more of a public spectacle, they would both serve a stronger deterrent purpose, and force people to acknowledge what the government is doing in their name -- both of which would likely have net positive effects on society at large.
Maybe. But the prospect of being the "star" of a big flashy public spectacle seems just as likely to encourage certain types of sociopaths, though. And while public executions might provoke more thoughtfulness about what our government is doing in our names, it seems just as likely to become "reality TV on steroids" for a large percentage of the US populace.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
Which will make the lot of them hypocrites - they declared the death penalty unconstitutional in 1982.
If they're going to scream for the death penalty here, they really need to rethink their own "death penalty is unconstitutional" thing - maybe amend their own constitution to make it legal, for instance.
And why is this a federal trial, anyway? Two people set off a couple of bombs in one town, don't kill any federal agents, and so it's a federal matter??
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
It is something that other nations managed to get right with prosecutors needing to pay for accusations that don't result in convictions.
What mechanisms do other nations have to make prosecutors pay for over-charging? I presume it's not a monetary fine because that would bring a whole host of issues, but I'd be interested to hear what mechanisms have been instituted.
Then charge him with three counts of murder and 234 counts of attempted murder. Does it really matter that this was done with explosives? Would you feel better if he stabbed 237 people to the same effect?
Yes, it does matter. Bombs are inherently more dangerous. You want to persuade people not to use them. Legal penalties tend to scale with the seriousness of the offense. Possessing some minor illegal fireworks might get you a modest fine and maybe 30 days in jail. Possessing a bomb is going to result in a much harsher penalty.
If he had set off his bomb, but through some miracle it neither killed nor wounded anybody, he could still be charged with the use of the bomb - a criminal law weapon of mass destruction. That could still result in significant jail time. In this scenario, in which he didn't manage to kill or wound anybody, that would be useful since there would be no murder or maiming to charge him with, although you could still try for attempted murder. But the thing is, juries can do funny things. They might question if he really meant to kill anybody, that can't really question that he set off a bomb.
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Actually the real reason so few died is because there were dozens of medics standing by at the end of the race course anyways.
Combination of factors. I read that the way the bombs burst was they sent out a nearly horizontal spray of shrapnel - mostly taking out legs. Yes, fast medical triage is a huge factor as blood loss is the quickest killer in such scenarios, which is why I have so much military training on putting on tourniquets. But if it had been 4' higher it would have been hitting chests and necks far more, which translates into fewer wounded(a chest is a bigger obstacle than legs), but more deaths. :(
I don't read AC A human right
I'd be interested in your take: I'm under the impression that Saddam wanted to portray the illusion of having WMDs (beyond his chemical arsenal) for the purpose of elevating his standing among neighboring countries. He gambled that the US wouldn't act, and misjudged. Badly.
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
Of course, we were at war, and a war that we didnt even start and took pains to stay out of, so I think there might be some difference there.
This is a discussion over the classification of the Boston Bombers bomb as a "Weapon of Mass Destruction".
I gave you a concrete example of the number of deaths caused by a Weapon of Mass Destruction; which was 2,200,000% FUCKING GREATER.
Of what consequence does "being at war" have with the destructive power of an atomic bomb vs. the destructive power of a pressure cooker. Unless you think 2 million is a statistical anomaly?
Ohhh... I see what happened you got confused about what the debate was, and started rationalizing that 3 American lives were still greater than 66,000 nips. Please, continue on then, I'd like to see you defend that position. I'll go make some popcorn.
So a guy randomly firing into a crowd is discriminating his targets? Seems like an indiscriminate shooting to me. A guy shooting random shots into a crowd wrecks the day (and possibly life) of anyone withing the bullets path. There is no aiming, no selection of targets, no "discrimination"
Is there any rational point to your comparison of scale? It doesn't seem to me that "he could have killed tens or hundreds of thousands; therefore 3 dead and over 200 injured do not count" is very rational.
Uhh.. yes, he could have killed tens or hundreds of thousands... if he had a fucking weapon of mass destruction... but since he did not, he only killed 3 people.
See, WMD = lots of deaths hence the word "MASS", non-WMD = few deaths.
Now if you set off an atomic bomb in in a crowded city and ONLY kill 3 people, then we can come back and re-visit the issue; but that won't happen because an atomic bomb causes... MASS DESTRUCTION. Now do you see the fucking difference!?
God i hate when they report the gun as "semi-automatic" as if anyone uses anything other than that.
Yea but if he is randomly firing into a crowd he isnt aiming. Its just indiscriminate killing.
... Conspiracy to commit a terrorist act ...
What is terrorism exactly? There is no agreed definition.
NB: The message above might reflect my opinion right now, but not necessarily tomorrow or next year.
I was mostly concentrating on Bush's reasons to go to war. It does seem that Saddam was playing a coy game about possibly still having/working on them, they did have a rather nasty shooting war with Iran, and having the weapons was supposed to be a way to defend against their rapidly improving military.
Roughly speaking, I hate it when people post things like 'it's all about the oil!!!!'. Let's face it: A government isn't a person. It doesn't have views, much less feelings. The best you can do is look at a general trend of the individuals within the government. Everything else is complicated interactions.
For example - Oil might explain the first gulf war, but Iraq doesn't have the oil reserves Kuwait did. Even if it did, you'd logically get a Saudi Arabia situation - hate their guts all you like, but the black gold will flow. If it was truly about the oil, it would have been far cheaper to ignore Saddam's abuses and simply paid his price. Even if he refused to sell to the USA, he probably would have sold to Europe & China, and those areas would simply have bought less US, Canada, Mexico, Central and South American oil, leaving it equally cheaper on the international market.
In reality, I figure 'possible WMDs' was actually pretty far down Bush's list of reasons for invading Iraq. But it was the one that sold for getting what international cooperation he was able to get, thus is the one he ended up pushing everywhere. I mean, we talk about politicians being dishonest left and right but believe Bush when he says it was about the WMD? Or attribute it to 'Oil!' when we went about it in a way that that would be so inefficient about it? One wants to get into nitpick theories, it was also a 'safe' way to validate US military combat theories. We paid a heavy price to gain our current skills in the area; and they're subject to degradation if you don't have combat to keep them up.
I don't read AC A human right
People talk big (you're Exhibit A), but they are still mostly decent in Boston. There will be no riots.
But really, you're just trolling with this stuff, right? You can't believe they'll go on a rampage of violence against people and property destruction, can you? Perhaps you just hang out with a bad slice of the people; I was there two weeks after the bombing, with people who live and work in the city, and I saw sadness and somber reflection. No urge to violence, no shaking of fists and demands for that asshole's blood.
Fair in the eyes of the public may not be "fair" in the eyes of the bomber.
Ok but under that definition, YOU are guilty of possessing and operating a WMD repeatedly, and because you can't prove otherwise, you operated that WMD with the intent to MURDER a multitude of people (you just didn't do a good job at it all this time)
"A WMD is any explosive or incendiary devices with more than 1/4 oz payload"
That perfectly describes the engine of your automobile. The same engine powering every car you had since you got your license. You have operated that WMD more days than not ever since then, and that WMD has the very real capability to kill many people (proven by the fact cars do in fact kill others, sometimes in the double digits if the wreck is bad enough)
Are you really sure you want to argue that public opinion means more than the rule of law?
Are you honestly saying you want to argue you are guilty of a crime that you can be put to death for?
You can argue my symantics as being stupid all you want (because they are), however they are very clearly and plainly defined in law as such, and you only need to piss off the right/wrong person to be put to death for crimes you have already committed.
No, the outrage would be that criminal law has decided to morph a military term into a civil one and then so bastardize it's meaning that any explosive of 1/4 oz or more is suddenly a WMD. Or do you really think a pipe bomb and a nuclear weapon are at all comparable with their usage? What part of any sort of justice* can be derived from grouping the two together? That criminal law should mutilate a term and then further for you or others to justifice that it's "in-line with current criminal law practice" really sends home the point that "current criminal law practice" is really fucked up.
*You know, justice? The part where a person who steals a loaf of bread isn't treated the same as a person who stills hundreds of cars? Where the law is written to differentiate "petty theft" from "grand theft auto"? Yea. Crazy talk.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
As long as he gets a fair trial (and by fair I mean a death sentence) [...]
You'd love North Korea's justice system; it is the epitome of "fair" by your twisted standard. Fortunately, most civilized societies have not only abolished the states' power to kill their own people, they enjoy lower murder rates as well.
Thank you, Edward Snowden.
"Arguments from authority are worthless." —Carl Sagan
"Mass destruction" isn't new. It was used pre-9/11 (Timmothy McVeigh, for one), and is a legacy name for explosive of the wrong size.
Learn to love Alaska
The reason for a penalty that severe is NOT to punish the offender; it's to deter the rest of society from acting the same way in the future.
Really? You actually think that anyone willing to kill many people is going to worry about the consequences when they get caught? Really? death penalty is about vengeance only, and not deterrent.
Learn to love Alaska
You're missing the point. If the bomb had killed no one it would still be criminal to set it off in a public place, but even in the best conditions (for the terrorists) it would have not been able to kill thousands.
They want precedent. As much flexibility as possible to tack on more charges whenever they feel like it. If they could call a backpack a WMD in this case, they would, just so the next time some league of legends of player makes a joke-threat while wearing a backpack they can hit him with WMD charges.
Forget the thousand deaths figure. That has nothing to do with anything. It was just for rhetorical purposes, as an example.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
I would like to believe it is specific enough, believe me.
"The Congress shall have Power To ... provide for the ... general Welfare ... To regulate Commerce ... among the several States ..."
"The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper ..."
These clause have allowed an endless train of overreaches. You can justify any goddam thing you want as furthering the welfare of the US, or as being neccesary and proper, and you can browbeat states to any insane degree under the supposed aegis of interstate commerce. Patrick Henry actually foresaw the limitless federal power and the destruction of individual liberty and argued against this puffery.
But in the end, my point is that there's no way it COULD have been made specific enough. Not at ten or a hundred times the length. The whole thing always rested, and had to rest, with the sustained wisdom and goodwill of the body politic and their leaders. When you compromise away all your original principles, your enterprise is doomed.
Over 200 injuries is mass destruction in any sane man's book. End of story.
Maybe. If somebody thinks they are man enough.
Therefore the criminal charge is invalid since a weapon of mass destruction can not exist.
The charge should really be called something like "using a weapon capable of destruction of personnel and materiel en-masse to convert the mass of said personnel and/or materiel into smaller bits of personnel and/or materiel".
If the definition doesn't fit you must acquit!
Seriously though I hope they roast this guy.
Mod me down with all of your hatred, and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
No, it was a stupid point. Apparently (according to the summary and the linked US law), that is a legal term which includes explosives. I would note that the term "explosives" can refer both to a common backyard bottle rocket, and to the Tsar Bomba, a 100MT warhead, which is several trillion times more powerful than said bottlerocket. Clearly there is a problem with the classification "explosive", right?
I was confused because I didnt think anyone would honestly be arguing the point. Just because you misunderstand the term, doesnt mean its a bad term.
This story was in the Washington Post back in April.
The term "weapon of mass destruction" has a legal definition, which you can find here. The definition of a "destructive device" is here, which I'll quote parts of.
Relevant part of 18 USC 2332a:
(2) the term “weapon of mass destruction” means—
(A) any destructive device as defined in section 921 of this title;
(B) any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors;
(C) any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector (as those terms are defined in section 178 of this title); or
(D) any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life; and
(3) the term “property” includes all real and personal property.
Relevant part of 18 USC 921
(4) The term “destructive device” means—
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas—
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for use in converting any device into any destructive device described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 4684 (2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.
As opposed to Weapons of Caring and Kindness?
Isn't then the knife a weapon of mass destruction too?
That guy who tried to explode a car bomb in NYC in 2010 was also charged with WMDs. Unlike some terrorist attacks in the US, that one didn't even have FBI informants "helping" him and providing fake explosives, or helping mix real explosives like the 1993 World Trade Center bombing.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Bullets don't count as WMDs, because they're usually only hitting at most one victim per shit (usually.) Doesn't matter that a machine gun can shoot a lot of people in a short time.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I agree that it's a dangerous law. Also, it's a way to make the crime Federal, instead of being a typical state-level crime like murder.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I mean seriously, how far does this go?
I live in Pakistan, and I have a pressure cooker.
If I happen to be walking outside with my cooker, will I be carrying a WMD?
If a drone kills me, will I be counted as a terrorist?
-----
But screw me, *you* are the guys who are really fucked.
I never had rights in the first place, but you...
Good luck carrying a utensil around. Frankly it's hilarious.
I am an ACCA student. Got a query on Accountancy/Finance? Maybe I can help!
Appeals in most trials are generally granted only after evidence is shown that the initial trial was incorrect in some way - new evidence comes to light, or one of the jurors brags about taking a bribe, etc. They're not common.
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
This is why you shouldn't be categorizing things into broad categories. You might not like some of the things that fit the definition of the category.
For a nuke that killed 100,000 people, you could call it, "a nuclear bomb that killed 100,000 people". What would you call a nuclear bomb in the middle of the desert that killed a couple of people? That's not exactly 'mass destruction'.
I think that's what the "who makes a clean getaway" was added for ;)
Although if they didn't even try for that, I suspect "guy shoots suspect in other case just because" would still be a much cheaper trial than what the justice department is facing right now.
Wow! does that mean the time that I was burning some stuff in a barrel at the back of my property and tossed in some aerosol cans for effect I could have been charged for using a WMD? This is real scary stuff.