Boston Marathon Explosion

rpf65

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

I'd have to disagree, F1. He has been declared a terrorist, so the government now can hold him indefinitely. No habeas corpus, no lawyers, no family/friends visits. He can be officially declared disappeared. No government official has to explain where he is, why he's been held, what's being done with him or to him, nothing.
If he were dead, he can't talk.
If he's alive, he will talk. And share what he knows. IMO, these two "kids" didn't act on their own, they were handled and directed. By whom ? That's what we can now find out. If that's the case, the people who are linked to them would have to be realizing that they're in a boatload of trouble themselves, too.

I have a feeling that a lot is already known about these individuals. I also have a feeling that some "junior assisstant" to some "nobody really important", is already talking to another "junior assisstant" about them. I also wouldn't be suprised that a few people in some small city that we have never heard of will be found as "advisors" to these 2 individuals. Unfortunatly, no further inteligence will be forth coming, because these "advisors" weren't able to be captured by the authorities in that small city.

SDA1C

Desensitization of the idea that we now need to lock down a city to catch some one. That was tried that in Cali for the cop killer and now with this. Why exactly are the citizens asked not to help protect their country? Oh that's right. We aren't supposed to protect ourselves any more. We are supposed to wait for someone else to come do it for us. Pathetic...."Oops, sorry officer. I was startled when I was cleaning the toilet and accidentally poked 17+1 holes in him with the brush." and/or "Where do I send the bill for having the blood cleaned off my boat?"

BlueFox

What!?!

ken brydson

Keiko wrote: »

It's nothing, just the alcohol talking. Move along....

It's the alcohol listening and I don't get it....

scottyboy76

Who was the naked guy last night?, and who was the dipstick who walked up behind the cops and got put face down at gunpoint on news video.

We were watching early this morning and the foggy reports had the naked guy as the 19 year old, obviously wrong.

BTW, other than the uncle, the terrorists relatives are a bunch of jerks, already making excuses and blaming americans.

ken brydson

Systems

ken brydson wrote: »

It's the alcohol listening and I don't get it....

Bet your stereo sounds pretty good right now!


LOL! Dude that is sig material right there! LMAO!!!:cheesygrin:

jbooker82

Glad they caught him. They have had media coverage on this thing like a North East snow storm.

Systems

I already "Stole it"!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Thanks Ken, look at my sig!:biggrin:

I have not laughed so hard in a LONG time on this forum!

chris23120

ken brydson wrote: »

agreed!

Systems

Ken, if you want me to take it down for some reason, just pm me, can do.

I thought it was one of the funniest things I have read in along time!

Hilarious!:biggrin:

Strong Bad

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

I'd have to disagree, F1. He has been declared a terrorist, so the government now can hold him indefinitely. No habeas corpus, no lawyers, no family/friends visits. He can be officially declared disappeared. No government official has to explain where he is, why he's been held, what's being done with him or to him, nothing.
If he were dead, he can't talk.
If he's alive, he will talk. And share what he knows. IMO, these two "kids" didn't act on their own, they were handled and directed. By whom ? That's what we can now find out. If that's the case, the people who are linked to them would have to be realizing that they're in a boatload of trouble themselves, too.

I'm also glad they got him alive. Waterboard the little scumbag and find out who was funding and supplying them. No way they acted alone!

mrbiron

How long until the movie gets made?...someone is going to try and profit from this.

So, now this kid is going to get 3 squares, cable, clean clothes and bedding with the occasional beating? Somehow i'm not OK with this.

tonyb

mrbiron wrote: »

How long until the movie gets made?...someone is going to try and profit from this.

So, now this kid is going to get 3 squares, cable, clean clothes and bedding with the occasional beating? Somehow i'm not OK with this.

Lets not forget this kids parents who seem alittle off their rocker too. How long before they start demanding their son gets released, or else ? I would deport all known relatives who seem sympathetic to this kid pronto before they can dream up some revenge plan that would put more people here in harms way. I'm sure all law enforcement agencies are reviewing stuff to see how these 2 slipped threw the cracks. Hopefully some processes will change. Saw one story that the older brother was once investigated for having terrorist ties but the FBI deemed him not a risk . Maybe someone dropped the ball on that one, who knows. Really have to start filtering who comes into this country by whatever means to narrow the possibilities of this stuff happening again. Not an easy task, I know but it has to be done.

chris23120

tonyb wrote: »

Lets not forget this kids parents who seem alittle off their rocker too. How long before they start demanding their son gets released, or else ? I would deport all known relatives who seem sympathetic to this kid pronto before they can dream up some revenge plan that would put more people here in harms way. I'm sure all law enforcement agencies are reviewing stuff to see how these 2 slipped threw the cracks. Hopefully some processes will change. Saw one story that the older brother was once investigated for having terrorist ties but the FBI deemed him not a risk . Maybe someone dropped the ball on that one, who knows. Really have to start filtering who comes into this country by whatever means to narrow the possibilities of this stuff happening again. Not an easy task, I know but it has to be done.

AGREED! 100%. Although legally I don't believe there's a way to deport sympathetic relatives, but I would like to think they will monitor them.

mrbigbluelight

Regarding where the 2nd guy was found hiding in a homeowner's boat, the news media is rather loose, IMO, in handing out the title, "Hero".

http://gma.yahoo.com/watertown-hero-homeowner-points-police-bomb-suspect-031941682--abc-news-topstories.html

Several other things mentioned in that article that are a bit troubling, too. IMO.

BlueFox

mrbigbluelight wrote: »

Regarding where the 2nd guy was found hiding in a homeowner's boat, the news media is rather loose, IMO, in handing out the title, "Hero".

That is nothing new.

cnh

SDA1C wrote: »

Desensitization of the idea that we now need to lock down a city to catch some one. That was tried that in Cali for the cop killer and now with this. Why exactly are the citizens asked not to help protect their country? Oh that's right. We aren't supposed to protect ourselves any more. We are supposed to wait for someone else to come do it for us. Pathetic...."Oops, sorry officer. I was startled when I was cleaning the toilet and accidentally poked 17+1 holes in him with the brush." and/or "Where do I send the bill for having the blood cleaned off my boat?"

I'm "pretty" sure I know what this means and "where" it is coming from but "I" am not going there because it would be as inappropriate? Transparency is not just a term used for reproducing music here! lol

Just good that this is all in hand. And, of course, THEY'RE not going to tell US everything--how DUMB would that be? Think about it!

cnh

tonyb

chris23120 wrote: »

AGREED! 100%. Although legally I don't believe there's a way to deport sympathetic relatives, but I would like to think they will monitor them.

I hear ya man, but really....since when did anything "legally" binding stop government from doing what it wants ? I dunno....I guess I'm more comfortable knowing my government broke laws to ensure our safety than broke laws to meet agendas. I know thats a terrible way to look at it but on a personal level I could live with it.

ken brydson

pepster wrote: »

Ken, if you want me to take it down for some reason, just pm me, can do.

I thought it was one of the funniest things I have read in along time!

Hilarious!:biggrin:

I come up with my best lines when I'm buzzed

ViperZ

It's amazing how 'patriotic' some of you are here, and that's great, but be objective.

So far government/police have not presented a single piece of evidence linking this guy (and his brother) to the terrorist attacks. If they actually do have evidence that yes, these two individuals committed a crime, why do they deny him his Miranda rights now? Don't people actually want to know the truth, what actually happened? Instead, government calls him a terrorist, denies him a right for a fair trial, will stuff him into some Guantanamo cell; and then no one will ever know what happened, whether it was this guy who actually committed the crime, or what organization (if any) was behind all of this.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/miranda-rights-boston-bombing-suspect_n_3120333.html?1366426954

mhardy6647

I was halfway expecting a beta test of the "let's use drones against US citizens" strategy Thursday into Friday.

jephdood

ViperZ wrote: »

So far government/police have not presented a single piece of evidence linking this guy (and his brother) to the terrorist attacks.

Wow, seriously? So far? It's only been a matter of hours since this **** went down. Pretty sure they'll be able to tie the multiple bombs tossed at police to the ones found at the finish line.

The fact that he's going to be tried in a civilian court rather than a military tribunal is pretty strong evidence that the gov't feels it has a pretty lock-tite case against the guy.

The rest of dude's life isn't going to be good. Nor should it be.

ViperZ

Wow. Seriously. You're "pretty sure" that "government feels". And he is already denied his Miranda rights. How do you know that he is guilty? Because police said that he is guilty? So you'll be happy that he is declared guilty, you have no idea what happened, closed deal? What if YOUR constitution rights were violated, you were taken off the street, thrown into jail with no rights, declared terrorist and never fairly tried?
Somehow when your constitutional rights are violated when your government wants to perform background checks before people buy guns, you all go crazy, but when a person gets arrested, gets denied his Miranda rights with no clear evidence, that's ok. Why not just publicly lynch him? F*k his rights, screw the constitution, which you all are so eager to defend when it affects only YOU personally, right?

jephdood

ViperZ wrote: »

And he is already denied his Miranda rights.

There is a legal exception to this. Which you know.

ViperZ wrote: »

How do you know that he is guilty? Because police said that he is guilty?

The police don't determine guilt/innocence. And neither do I. Courts do. But to say no evidence has turned up yet linking these two is... :eek:

ViperZ wrote: »

So you'll be happy that he is declared guilty, you have no idea what happened, closed deal?

Actually, I'm not happy about any of this. It's very sad all the way around, other than the pride I feel for our law enforcement personnel.

ViperZ wrote: »

What if YOUR constitution rights were violated, you were taken off the street, thrown into jail with no rights, declared terrorist and never fairly tried?

Again, there is an exception for Miranda for situations like this. And, no trial has happened yet. He hasn't even been arraigned. So I'm not sure about your claim disputing a fair trial. I will say, that if I terrorized a city for two days, committed multiple murders, shot and threw munitions at law enforcement, etc etc etc... yes, they should take me off the street and throw me in jail.

ViperZ wrote: »

Somehow when your constitutional rights are violated when your government wants to perform background checks before people buy guns, you all go crazy, but when a person gets arrested, gets denied his Miranda rights with no clear evidence, that's ok. Why not just publicly lynch him? F*k his rights, screw the constitution, which you all are so eager to defend when it affects only YOU personally, right?

Actually, 90% of Americans approve of background checks in the sale of weapons. It's Congress (and lobbies) that kill that every time.

ViperZ

Just to add to this. Benjamin Franklin is sometimes paraphrased: "Any one who will trade freedom for security deserves neither."

In my opinion, by denying this guy a proper trial, your government only worsens the problem. If the guy is a real terrorist, then his motives have to be exposed, and yes, lesson has to be taught to all terrorists, but it has to be done openly and fairly. So that other people who were otherwise to commit terrorism against your country, would understand that they will be CAUGHT, TRIED fairly and PUNISHED accordingly.
Otherwise, the way this situation is currently being handled by authorities literally shows that they are willing to violate anyone's constitutional rights just to close the issue. I personally don't want to see a black person being arrested on the street just because statistically people of certain skin color or race or religion commit more crimes. It looks like your government is going in that direction fairly quickly.

ViperZ

Jeph, correctly me if I am wrong, I know it's off-topic, but didn't you, people, select that congress?
"Actually, 90% of Americans approve of background checks in the sale of weapons. It's Congress (and lobbies) that kill that every time. "

Also, ok, I agree, I pushed too far saying that fair trial is denied, but again, Miranda rights are quite simple. The exception used was that he was an immediate danger to public. The guy who found this suspected terrorist said that he was laying in a pool of blood. How is he an immediate danger in his condition?

jephdood

ViperZ wrote: »

Jeph, correctly me if I am wrong, I know it's off-topic, but didn't you, people, select that congress?

You hope your elected officials represent your wishes in government. But, sadly, it doesn't work out that way nearly as much as it should. Money talks. Also, people don't vote on one issue. If a congressman sides with your beliefs on 95% of the issues that are important to you, but you disagree with his views on gun laws, do you vote for the other guy? No, probably not. Unless gun control is your #1 issue.

ViperZ wrote: »

The exception used was that he was an immediate danger to public. The guy who found this suspected terrorist said that he was laying in a pool of blood. How is he an immediate danger in his condition?

-He could have other live bombs planted around the city
-He could be just one small part of a larger cell or plan that still intends to do harm

Etc.

jephdood

Or... OR... he knows what happens in the season finale of Game of Thrones and he's threatened to Tweet it...

ViperZ

Ah, whatever, too much politics for me. Personally, obviously, I want whoever killed those people caught, tried and punished accordingly. But I do want it done openly and fairly. Why? Because I want to know that the guy actually did what he is being incriminated, and if he had any accomplices, those to be caught too.

(and most of us do know what will happen at least in the ending of 3rd season, because Martin already wrote, what, 5 books? )