The Student Room Group

BREAKING: Reports of multiple explosions at Boston Marathon leaving dozens wounded.

Scroll to see replies

Original post by megfashion
Hope im not silly in asking this

But how did they become suspects in the first place?

Im glad they have caught them though

Posted from TSR Mobile


Presumably when the chaos kicked off at MIT, interaction between the police chasing them and the investigators into the bombings collaborated and came to the conclusion it was them? I don't know:confused:
Original post by megfashion
Hope im not silly in asking this

But how did they become suspects in the first place?

Im glad they have caught them though

Posted from TSR Mobile


Photos and videos of the scene were exhaustively analysed and they were identified from the pictures as having carried bags in and then left without them. The images were then circulated by the FBI onto the media and people who knew them named them to the police.
It's a conspiracy when they want it to be a conspiracy...When they want the version of events to fit a different bill.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by megfashion
Hope im not silly in asking this

But how did they become suspects in the first place?

Im glad they have caught them though

Posted from TSR Mobile


They narrowed down the suspects by what a person in hospital (with injuries from the explosions had said). The man told his brother that he saw a man drop a rucksack and they shared eye contact or something and he though it was suspicious.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/boston-bomb-victim-helped-identify-suspect-115822254.html#Bfo0OcN
Original post by MattKneale
There has to be a very serious implication to national security for the case to be referred to federal jurisdiction and for the meantime we don't even know if there's a national security case to be answered.


I would demur insofar as "substantial national security implication" isn't a legal term of art. He will be charged, rather than referred, with a federal crime if he's committed a federal crime.

I'm pretty certain that the wiki article is referring, implicitly, to title 18 USC 2332x crimes. For example, 2332b, An act of Terrorism that Transcends that Transcends National Boundaries. In that case, jurisdiction is limited to

where the conduct
involves the use of the mail or any instrument of interstate or
foreign commerce; the offense obstructs, delays, or affects
interstate or foreign commerce; the victim is the United States,
a member of the uniformed services, or any other federal
employee; the property affected is, in whole or in part, owned
or leased by the United States; or the offense is committed in
the territorial sea, special maritime, or territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.


---

-If they were acting as above but with the aid of a foreign agency or extremist group, depending upon the extent of that, they could be tried either federally or under a military trial. That's where the risk of a death penalty could be applied, but I still think the above option is more likely.


I'm just curious about that claim.. He's a US citizen, caught in the United States, committing either state crimes or domestic US crimes. There's no basis under current jurisprudence in which he'd be able to be held as an enemy combatant (and thus liable to military trial).

I also don't see which statute or law would be invoked or engaged by whether he received aid, and how this would affect the jurisdiction. The only federal crime I can see him being charged with at present, and even this is a stretch, is title 18 USC 2332f, "Bombings of Places of Public Use".

So let's take a look.

(a) Offenses.—(1) In general.— Whoever unlawfully delivers, places, discharges, or detonates an explosive or other lethal device in, into, or against a place of public use,


Okay, looks like we're fine so far.

(b) Jurisdiction.— There is jurisdiction over the offenses in subsection (a) if—(1) the offense takes place in the United States and—


Check.

(A) the offense is committed against another state or a government facility of such state, including its embassy or other diplomatic or consular premises of that state;
(B) the offense is committed in an attempt to compel another state or the United States to do or abstain from doing any act;


Well, clearly not the first. The second will be very hard to prove as they never made any public statements about responsibility, nor released a manifesto. The presumption would be that, pending evidence, they just wanted to kill Americans.

And then jurisdictional issues, that even if they meet that test,

(d) Exemptions to Jurisdiction.— This section does not apply to—(3) offenses committed within the United States, where the alleged offender and the victims are United States citizens and the alleged offender is found in the United States, or where jurisdiction is predicated solely on the nationality of the victims or the alleged offender and the offense has no substantial effect on interstate or foreign commerce.


The actual bombing itself engages no substantive federal interest. A military commission, which you raised, is not going to happen considering his citizenship and the location of the crime and his capture.

And the only possible federal offences that he conceivably might be charged with are material support to terrorism and the like if evidence emerges that he was backed by a foreign group. We've not seen any evidence of that.
Original post by CEKTOP
Let's just wait until they charge him, it will surely determine who's right.


I thought you said it was guaranteed. Not having any doubts, are you?
Reply 1146
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
I thought you said it was guaranteed. Not having any doubts, are you?


I still don't have any doubts whatsoever but I think it would be wise to spare all the useless ramblings until he's actually charged. I'll get back to you when it happens.
Original post by CEKTOP
I still don't have any doubts whatsoever but I think it would be wise to spare all the useless ramblings until he's actually charged. I'll get back to you when it happens.


By which you mean to say, "My poor knowledge of American law just got shown up very publicly and I'm pissed. And now I'm going to run away".

I accept your surrender.
Reply 1148
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
By which you mean to say, "My poor knowledge of American law just got shown up very publicly and I'm pissed. And now I'm going to run away".

I accept your surrender.


No, I'm just trying to say that as soon as he gets charged under federal law I'll make sure that you are aware of that, any further discussion is unnecessary.
Guess religion.
Reply 1150
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
I agree. I thought it was important to emphatically refute the claim that Dzhokar is guaranteed to be tried under federal law, and guaranteed to get the death penalty.

There is no inherent federal jurisdiction in the crimes committed, and this is exactly the point Alan Dershowitz has just been making.

Cektop (and many commenters) need to learn to distinguish their desire for something to happen from the likelihood that it will actually happen.

I'd also point out.... Massaoui was tried under federal law, convicted and got life in prison. Death penalty is far from guaranteed as a federal homicide charge looks next to impossible. Most of the subsidiary federal charges with which they might charge him are actually ones that don't carry the death penalty.


Where's Dershowiz been speaking? Got a link to the video?
Anyone know what's happened to that old guy who was seen with a bomb vest on him?
Original post by 419
Where's Dershowiz been speaking? Got a link to the video?


He was on Piers Morgan; I don't have a link as I watched it on television. There's a CNN article that provides a partial account of what he said

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-suspect-what-next/index.html

Edit: I've gone through all the 18 USC 2332 offences. Even under the very broad drafting of that statute, Dzhokar doesn't seem to fall under it. This case would be quite unique insofar as there's almost always a way you can construe some kind of federal jurisdiction in terrorism cases (usually because they involve foreign citizens, or they have trained overseas, or travelled over state lines in commissioning of the offence), but in this case it really does look like a state offence.

The only "out" would be if the federal government argues that he, for example, set of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (which under the US law includes chemical explosives) under 18 USC 2332b, and that where and how he set it off had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Not only would that be contrary to the current jurisprudential tests of when interstate commerce interests are engaged, it would also face an almost insurmountable causation hurdle.
(edited 11 years ago)
The younger brothers twitter :smile: Kinda weird reading his tweets :redface: Makes you think

https://mobile.twitter.com/J_tsar
Original post by This Excellency
The younger brothers twitter :smile: Kinda weird reading his tweets :redface: Makes you think

https://mobile.twitter.com/J_tsar


"And here I thought nemo's dad was about to get it with dory but apparently this man turned into a female #thatscray"

He doesn't come across as ultra extreme Muslim. No clue why he would've done this.
Reply 1155
Original post by AlexandrTheGreat
He was on Piers Morgan; I don't have a link as I watched it on television. There's a CNN article that provides a partial account of what he said

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-suspect-what-next/index.html

Edit: I've gone through all the 18 USC 2332 offences. Even under the very broad drafting of that statute, Dzhokar doesn't seem to fall under it. This case would be quite unique insofar as there's almost always a way you can construe some kind of federal jurisdiction in terrorism cases (usually because they involve foreign citizens, or they have trained overseas, or travelled over state lines in commissioning of the offence), but in this case it really does look like a state offence.

The only "out" would be if the federal government argues that he, for example, set of a Weapon of Mass Destruction (which under the US law includes chemical explosives) under 18 USC 2332b, and that where and how he set it off had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

Not only would that be contrary to the current jurisprudential tests of when interstate commerce interests are engaged, it would also face an almost insurmountable causation hurdle.

Is terrorism not grounds for a federal trial?

Besides shooting at federal agents is there were FBI agents at the final standoff.

I'll admit I'm no expert on US law just curious.
Reply 1156
Original post by IdeasForLife
"And here I thought nemo's dad was about to get it with dory but apparently this man turned into a female #thatscray"

He doesn't come across as ultra extreme Muslim. No clue why he would've done this.


Anyone that say Dzhokar fits the profile of an extremist are pdeluded.
Reply 1157
Original post by IdeasForLife
"And here I thought nemo's dad was about to get it with dory but apparently this man turned into a female #thatscray"

He doesn't come across as ultra extreme Muslim. No clue why he would've done this.


Ridiculous thing to say - just like neighbours of murderers say "oh, he was a nice quiet man..always gave me a wave hello"

Or when someone commits suicide - "oh he/she seemed so happy. I only spoke to them yesterday and they were laughing and joking"

There is no set profile of an Islamist. Most of the 21/7 would-be bombers were highly educated and participated fully in society.

Many of the 9/11 highjackers came from middle class, financially well off families.

We also have to keep in mind the possibility of having twitter and facebook actually served as a cover for terrorism plots. Perhaps if they arose suspicion and had no social media footprint, that would be more suspicious given their age.

These are straight up Islamists. They come in all shapes and sizes, colours and backgrounds. They can be dirt poor or wealthy. Educated or illiterate. Happy or sad.

The one thing that they have in common is Islam.
Original post by 419
Anyone that say Dzhokar fits the profile of an extremist are pdeluded.


was probably brainwashed or pressured into it by his elder brother.
Original post by Pendulum3
Look at the 19 years old twitter he doesn't seem radical or extreme, just seems like a normal teen, I wouldnt suspect anyone like him to carry out an attack like this.


What were you expecting? Allahu akbars and political tweets?

We often fall into the trap of thinking people are stereotypes or extremes. But many of us are pretty similar to each other, but we are all capable of different things and have wildly varying beliefs and reactions.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending