[Reply]What grinds my "hypothetical situation" gears is wondering what they would have told him if he'd told them to fuck off until his lawyer arrived.
QuoteHe did tell them to fuck off. He wanted a lawyer. And still sang like a canary. Leaves me wondering what else happened in that hospital room.
Why, what in the world could you be implying? The USA does not torture.
That said, what's the legality of drug administration for the purposes of interrogation?
normiss 622
I've been wondering about that last question as well.
No witnesses comes to mind though ...
No witnesses comes to mind though ...
QuoteFIFY. I agree, especially when it is a American citizen, accused of criminal conduct on US soil and safely in US custody.
I would put it slightly differently. I would say that this case should have involved an American and Massachusetts citizen, a Massachusetts resident, accused of criminal conduct on Massachusetts soil and safely in Massachusetts custody.
This was fundamentally a state crime this young man is accused of. A very, very horrific state crime to be sure. But fundamentally a state crime. I don't see a legitimate federal issue here for the feds to get involved.
So if you ask whether the feds should be dealing with this guy as an enemy combatant or a common criminal: my answer is that the feds shouldn't even be involved. This is Massachusetts business.
Now I do think that Massachusetts might come to realize that they have made a mistake by not having a state death penalty on the books for state crimes of this magnitude. But that mistake is Massachusetts' to make. Certainly this guy, being quite young, will have many years ahead of him rotting in a Massachusetts prison contemplating the evil of his ways.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
I would have put it differently also: "I would put it slightly differently. I would say that this case should have involved an 'American jihadist soldier of islam' and Massachusetts citizen, a Massachusetts resident, accused of criminal conduct 'using weapons of mass destruction' on Massachusetts soil and safely in Massachusetts custody"
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteFIFY. I agree, especially when it is a American citizen, accused of criminal conduct on US soil and safely in US custody.
I would put it slightly differently. I would say that this case should have involved an American and Massachusetts citizen, a Massachusetts resident, accused of criminal conduct on Massachusetts soil and safely in Massachusetts custody.
There's no such thing as Massachusetts citizenship. He is a US citizen. I don't see how residency applies, but you were correct that he lived in Mass. The reason I said US soil and not Mass soil is because we are discussing issues concerning the us constitution. I don't know much about Mass law, but I haven't heard people complaining that his rights under state law were violated. Finally, he is not in Mass custody. I was specific. He is in us custody. The Feds arrested him and haven't released him to anyone. He was arrested and charged, and will be tried, at the federal level.
QuoteThis was fundamentally a state crime this young man is accused of. A very, very horrific state crime to be sure. But fundamentally a state crime. I don't see a legitimate federal issue here for the feds to get involved.
You do know there are federal laws, and he's been charged with violating them, right?
QuoteSo if you ask whether the feds should be dealing with this guy as an enemy combatant or a common criminal: my answer is that the feds shouldn't even be involved. This is Massachusetts business.
While I don't entirely disagree with you (see above posts), it is not only state business. There are plenty of crimes that are addressed by both state and federal law. Just look at possession of firearms by convicted felons.
QuoteNow I do think that Massachusetts might come to realize that they have made a mistake by not having a state death penalty on the books for state crimes of this magnitude. But that mistake is Massachusetts' to make. Certainly this guy, being quite young, will have many years ahead of him rotting in a Massachusetts prison contemplating the evil of his ways.
You are completely wrong. I'm not saying you're desires are wrong, but that's not what's going to happen. He will face federal charges and federal sentencing. He will not spend a minute in state prison. He will go into the federal prison system (assuming he is convicted).
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteThere are plenty of crimes that are addressed by both state and federal law.
I'm not claiming that he hasn't committed both state and federal crimes. What I'm claiming is that he was captured by state/local law enforcement and is accused of extremely grave crimes at the state level. If he's now in federal custody that means that at some point a decision was made to release him from state custody to turn him over to the feds. I'm questioning that decision given the seriousness of his state crimes.
If he had originally been captured by the feds--or if this were fundamentally a federal matter with the state crimes minor as compared with the federal issue--I'd have no problem with his being tried by the feds.
Among other things, the decision to turn him over to the feds probably means he won't be prosecuted for the murder of the local law enforcement officer who died trying to capture this guy. I think that does a disservice to that officer's family.
In general, indeed, that is why I oppose the prosecution of mass murderers at the federal level, because it often means they are prosecuted only for those murders for which a federal crime exists. That is insulting to the other victims--all victims should be treated equally. At the state level you can prosecute for ALL murders.
Basically I prefer to see prosecution at the state level. Murder is a very human crime and the state/local courts are just closer to the human beings who were killed. Federal prosecution should be a last resort only if the states aren't up to the task for some reason.
Now the only argument here could be that he deserves the death penalty and that is possible--in this case--only at the federal level (since MA has no state death penalty). I'd still argue, though, for initial state prosecution and federal prosecution only later after the state case has been resolved.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
Andy9o8 0
QuoteThere's no such thing as Massachusetts citizenship.
Well, there is, for other purposes - but it has absolutely no bearing on criminal law generally, or this case in particular.
QuoteI don't see how residency applies,
It doesn't.
QuoteQuoteI don't see how residency applies,
It doesn't.
In certain cases, crossing state lines to commit a crime turns it--legitimately--into a federal crime. For example, both kidnapping and violation of a protection order are generally state crimes, but can be charged federally if someone crosses state lines in committing the crime. I don't know if a similar principle would apply to any of this guy's crimes. The fact that he is a MA resident would make it hard to argue that he crossed state lines to commit his crimes.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
QuoteI would have put it differently also: "I would put it slightly differently. I would say that this case should have involved an 'American jihadist soldier of islam' and Massachusetts citizen, a Massachusetts resident, accused of criminal conduct 'using weapons of mass destruction' on Massachusetts soil and safely in Massachusetts custody"
A strong argument could, indeed, be made that he should lose his US citizenship if he was associated with established terrorist organizations before becoming a citizen and therefore did not legitimately become a citizen. This is quite possible given that he became a US citizen quite recently. This could be done either through civil denaturalization proceedings or criminal charges for obtaining US citizenship through fraud.
However--IMHO--all federal action against this guy should have taken a back seat given the gravity of his state crimes and the fact that there is only one state involved (hence no question of which state has jurisdiction).
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteI don't see how residency applies,
It doesn't.
In certain cases, crossing state lines to commit a crime turns it--legitimately--into a federal crime. For example, both kidnapping and violation of a protection order are generally state crimes, but can be charged federally if someone crosses state lines in committing the crime. I don't know if a similar principle would apply to any of this guy's crimes.
Crossing state lines to commit a crime, as an element of a federal offense, is irrelevant to residency.
QuoteThe fact that he is a MA resident would make it hard to argue that he crossed state lines to commit his crimes.
Nope; the one has no bearing on the other, except possibly as a "likelihood" factual issue for a jury to decide.
Oh, BTW, looks like the low-grade explosives probably used in the bombs were derived from powerful fireworks Older Brother crossed into New Hampshire to buy, and then crossed back into MA to be used in the bombs. And, of course, those acts by Older Bro are imputed to Younger Bro via Conspiracy. Ergo, Federal crime.
Now stop stretching already.
Kennedy 0
You're just factually wrong, and that is derailing a quality discussion. He was taken into custody by federal agents. Look at the picture where he's on his back next for the boat with his belly showing. Who is there arresting searching and treating him? ATF and FBI. Look at who guarded him at the hispital. Look at who charged him. Look at what facility is housing him now.
I understand why you don't want it to be so, but that doesn't make it not so.
And if you think the feds are ever going to let a state take a criminal to trial before they try him federally (if they want to) you're insane.
I understand why you don't want it to be so, but that doesn't make it not so.
And if you think the feds are ever going to let a state take a criminal to trial before they try him federally (if they want to) you're insane.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteOh, BTW, looks like the low-grade explosives probably used in the bombs were derived from powerful fireworks Older Brother crossed into New Hampshire to buy, and then crossed back into MA to be used in the bombs. And, of course, those acts by Older Bro are imputed to Younger Bro via Conspiracy. Ergo, Federal crime.
You are missing my point.
I'm not denying that it might be POSSIBLE to prosecute this guy at the federal level. Rather I am stating my OPINION--that the prosecution should be at the state level. Others might have different opinions but simply showing me that federal prosecution is POSSIBLE isn't going to persuade me to change my opinion.
This thread originally asked for people's opinions. I stated that not only should it be a civilian criminal prosecution--it should be at the state level not the federal level.
If the only interstate element of the crime was the purchase of bomb materials in NH I don't feel that is sufficient justification for the feds to get involved. Now if he'd also killed people in NH--as well as MA--I might feel differently.
If you feel he SHOULD be prosecuted at the federal level then I'm interested in hearing your reasons for thinking so. If you are simply saying that he CAN be prosecuted at the federal level, then there is nothing more to say because I agree that that CAN be done--I just don't think it SHOULD be done.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
QuoteYou're just factually wrong, and that is derailing a quality discussion. He was taken into custody by federal agents. Look at the picture where he's on his back next for the boat with his belly showing. Who is there arresting searching and treating him? ATF and FBI. Look at who guarded him at the hispital. Look at who charged him. Look at what facility is housing him now.
There seem to be differing opinions as to who took him into custody. The following link says "police"--ie local law enforcement and not federal agents:
Watertown Suspect Alive And In Police Custody
QuoteI understand why you don't want it to be so, but that doesn't make it not so.
The subject line in the thread says "should". This thread IS about what people want to be so/not so, not what actually is so/not so. Consistent with the subject of the thread I am offering my opinions of what should/should have happened, not what actually did/will happen.
QuoteAnd if you think the feds are ever going to let a state take a criminal to trial before they try him federally (if they want to) you're insane.
Which is partly why I think he should have remained in state/local custody. But I understand there may be differing opinions as to who--state/local or feds--initially had custody.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
Kennedy 0
QuoteThere seem to be differing opinions as to who took him into custody. The following link says "police"--ie local law enforcement and not federal agents:
Watertown Suspect Alive And In Police Custody
...
Which is partly why I think he should have remained in state/local custody. But I understand there may be differing opinions as to who--state/local or feds--initially had custody.
That link means fuckall. They don't name an agency, and plenty of reporters use "police custody" to mean law enforcement custody.
google image search for dzhokhar Tsarnaevs arrest
Differing opinions just means some people are wrong I this case, because the facts are what they are.
QuoteThe subject line in the thread says "should". This thread IS about what people want to be so/not so, not what actually is so/not so. Consistent with the subject of the thread I am offering my opinions of what should/should have happened, not what actually did/will happen.
The thread is about what status he should have, now that he is in federal custody. If you think the feds have no claim and should release him to Mass authorities, say so, but don't claim that Mass LEOs have him.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteThat link means fuckall. They don't name an agency, and plenty of reporters use "police custody" to mean law enforcement custody.
google image search for dzhokhar Tsarnaevs arrest
Differing opinions just means some people are wrong I this case, because the facts are what they are.
True some are going to be right and some wrong. But the photo (that you are referring to) isn't conclusive either because it shows him on the ground--not on the boat. Who moved him from the boat to the ground? Do we know? It doesn't look like he was capable of moving under his own power by that point.
Someone I know who lives in the neighborhood says that he saw local police--and later state police from NH who were called in to help--but not federal agents. I don't know that my friend could see the actual house/boat, though--so that's not conclusive either.
QuoteThe thread is about what status he should have, now that he is in federal custody. If you think the feds have no claim and should release him to Mass authorities, say so, but don't claim that Mass LEOs have him.
I never claimed that MA law enforcement has him. Even if they did briefly, they clearly don't any more. I just would have preferred that MA have had jurisdiction/custody from the beginning. I'm not expecting that to happen now.
"It's hard to have fun at 4-way unless your whole team gets down to the ground safely to do it again!"--Northern California Skydiving League re USPA Safety Day, March 8, 2014
ryoder 1,394
The Saudis had warned us about Tamarlan last year: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2317493/Saudi-official-Kingdom-warned-United-States-IN-WRITING-Boston-Bomber-Tamerlan-Tsarnaev-2012-rejected-application-entry-visa-visit-Mecca-2011.html
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
ryoder 1,394
Three more arrests made???
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/more-boston-marathon-bombing-suspects/64770/
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteThat link means fuckall. They don't name an agency, and plenty of reporters use "police custody" to mean law enforcement custody.
google image search for dzhokhar Tsarnaevs arrest
Differing opinions just means some people are wrong I this case, because the facts are what they are.
True some are going to be right and some wrong. But the photo (that you are referring to) isn't conclusive either because it shows him on the ground--not on the boat. Who moved him from the boat to the ground? Do we know? It doesn't look like he was capable of moving under his own power by that point.
Someone I know who lives in the neighborhood says that he saw local police--and later state police from NH who were called in to help--but not federal agents. I don't know that my friend could see the actual house/boat, though--so that's not conclusive either.
Boston PD said he was in custody. Did they ever say he was in their custody? Do you have any valid reason for believing he was ever in state/county/local custody?
QuoteQuoteThe thread is about what status he should have, now that he is in federal custody. If you think the feds have no claim and should release him to Mass authorities, say so, but don't claim that Mass LEOs have him.
I never claimed that MA law enforcement has him. Even if they did briefly, they clearly don't any more. I just would have preferred that MA have had jurisdiction/custody from the beginning. I'm not expecting that to happen now.
It sure sounded like you did.
Quotehttp://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4479776#4479776
What I'm claiming is that he was captured by state/local law enforcement and is accused of extremely grave crimes at the state level. If he's now in federal custody that means that at some point a decision was made to release him from state custody to turn him over to the feds. I'm questioning that decision given the seriousness of his state crimes.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteThree more arrests made???
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/05/more-boston-marathon-bombing-suspects/64770/
Wondering if they got the info due to the questioning of Tsarnaev when the government refused to allow him an attorney or a lawyer. If so, I hope the charges against them get thrown out.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
Kennedy 0
I've heard more than one judge convict someone in this sort of case, saying "Your rights weren't violated. Their rights are irrelevant to this case. Guilty."
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Looks like they are all charged with hampering the investigation and not suspected of any involvement beforehand.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
ryoder 1,394
This article says the 2 foreign students were charged only with visa violations: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/22/students-from-kazakhstan-arrested-visa-violations/nEYIdoILM4rRdDA2d4BGmI/story.html
"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.
Andy9o8 0
QuoteThis article says the 2 foreign students were charged only with visa violations: http://www.boston.com/metrodesk/2013/04/22/students-from-kazakhstan-arrested-visa-violations/nEYIdoILM4rRdDA2d4BGmI/story.html
Those bastards! Now's not the time to go all wobbly and Mirandize them.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites