It's over!

Terrorism by definition has a political motive. Now, unless that shiny happy person that shot up the school had a political motive that we never heard of, then that's not terrorism.

Here: Crazy shiny happy person shoots up grade school in CT: No political motive, just a crazy shiny happy person, not a terrorist.
Chechnyan shiny happy people shoot up grade school in Russia: Political motive, terrorists. http://www.barenakedislam.com/2013/04/19/russia-2004-beslan-school-massacre-by-chechen-muslim-terrorists/
Chechnyan shiny happy people bomb Boston Marathon: Political motive (or religious, whatever), terrorists.

shadetree30 wrote:

fasted58 wrote: FLIR image of suspect #2 from MSP chopper

Wonder if the boat's for sale now...imagine it has some bullet holes in it.

I wouldn't wanna own it after that. Do you destroy it, repair it? Hope in one way or another it don't end up on Ebay.

fasted58 wrote:

shadetree30 wrote:

fasted58 wrote: FLIR image of suspect #2 from MSP chopper

Wonder if the boat's for sale now...imagine it has some bullet holes in it.

I wouldn't wanna own it after that. Do you destroy it, repair it? Hope in one way or another it don't end up on Ebay.

Wonder who pays the insurance claim on the boat?

In reply to Datsun1500:

I would have loved to have seen McVeigh go down to Guantanamo Bay. Is that where you are going with that question?

What about the brother? I didn't hear that he was a citizen. So that makes this one (the one not dead) a naturalized US Citizen of Chechnyan origin, or a Chechnyan-American, take your pick.

Datsun1500 wrote: In reply to Anti-stance: Not at all. I'm really curious why this guy, is considered a terrorist and any other US citizen on US soil that kills people is not. A lot of mass murders have killed more and caused more panic. Why is this terrorism and the others are not. What am I missing? There are cases of people putting bombs in cars and killing an ex wife, why is that guy not a terrorist? If it was not a US citizen, I would get it, I just don't know why this particular one is different.

Other Americans have been considered terrorists before. The Unibomber, Timothy McVeigh, Weather Underground.

They were all tried as citizens though as far as I know. I don't understand why the news is reporting that this one won't be. I'm wondering if that is the case or if there is some kind of miscommunication. There are other reasons why he wasn't mirandized like if he is not consicious.

I think a big part of it is whether you are considered to be part of a larger "group" or not. It's hard to truly be anything more than a crazy person who can deal out damage in large quantities, but when you get a GROUP of these people together, they become terrorists. Makes sense to me.

I don't know if it actually happened, but reportedly one of the brothers went somewhere for training? Or tried to?

I wonder how many of those left-leaning anti-gun types, trapped in their houses while this guy was on the loose, were wishing they were armed.

That's probably better left for the gun control rant thread. Such things are what lead to the locking of the first thread on Boston

From Bill Maher's twitter account:

Here's to Boston cops, they did what so many men never have been able to do: they found the little man in the boat.

In reply to Trans_Maro:

thas good there

The Associated Press

WASHINGTON —

The White House says the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing will not be tried as an enemy combatant in a military tribunal.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be prosecuted in the federal court system.

He says President Barack Obama's entire national security team supports the decision.

Tsarnaev is a naturalized U.S. citizen. Carney says that under U.S. law U.S. citizens cannot be tried in military commissions. Carney says that since Sept. 11, 2001, the federal court system has been used to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists.

Tsarnaev, 19, and his older brother and suspected co-conspirator, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were born in southern Russia.

Copyright The Associated Press

That's a good decision.

In reply to Wally:

Domestic versus non domestic is the key term.

I still don't like the political BS definition of terrorism, when did it change to being politically motivated, it should still read "To instill fear upon others"

Where is the political BS definition of terrorism? I don't see the charges at all. (though I probably agree with you)

Since he is a citizen, I suppose that makes sense; if he were an alien here on a visa or illegally then maybe that means he'd be an enemy combatant.

The release doesn't say specifically if he will be tried as a terrorist, only that he will be tried in the federal civilian court system. He might be tried as a garden variety murderer. Come to think of it, that might be best; it could keep him from becoming a political hot potato.

Him being a citizen, I'm OK with him being afforded our court system. It's when we pick people up off the battlefield on the other side of the world and pretend that our courts are the right venue that I get irritated.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-04-22/dzhokhar-tsarnaev-charged-under-seal-fbi-issues-update-his-health-condition

Update: just out from Boston is news that Tsarnaev has been charged with conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction against US persons and property, resulting in death. He will face the death penalty. Moments ago, in addition to White House spokesman John Carney announcing Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, who became a US citizen several years ago, will not be treated as an enemy combatant and that he has just been charged under seal, the FBI released a "status update" on his health condition, which is listed as "serious." Update on Condition of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev FBI Boston April 22, 2013 Special Agent Greg Comcowich (617) 223-6110 According to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev remains in serious condition. The FBI is releasing this information at the request of the hospital.

For sale:

Y'all seem to forget that they didn't read him his Miranda Rights. Even a first year law student could get this case thrown out...

No. It means any infomation gathered cannot be used against him in court.

I'm sure they have enough ....

racerfink wrote: Y'all seem to forget that they didn't read him his Miranda Rights. Even a first year law student could get this case thrown out...

And a second year law student would know about New York v. Quarles.

Now, has the public safety exemption been abused in recent events, yes. Will the AG find a way to try him under it? Of course.

In reply to 914Driver:

It doesn't even mean that.

racerfink wrote: Y'all seem to forget that they didn't read him his Miranda Rights. Even a first year law student could get this case thrown out...

Not exactly true. There are circumstances where questions can be asked before a Miranda, it's called the 'public safety' exclusion. The case which established the precedent: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=467&invol=649

Also, Miranda only covers questions asked which the police intend to use in court. There is so much evidence (such as the videos of him and his brother planting the devices) that using statements is probably kind of a moot point.

Still, if he is questioned (and I am sure he will be) all they need to do is Mirandize him first, then the answers from that interview will be admissible.

The work the police and FBI did on this was amazing. I can't believe they got him alive.