Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

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

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol, on fb


    consulate general of the czech republic in new york
    as many i was deeply shocked by the tragedy that occurred in boston earlier this month. It was a stark reminder of the fact that any of us could be a victim of senseless violence anywhere at any moment.

    As more information on the origin of the alleged perpetrators is coming to light, i am concerned to note in the social media a most unfortunate misunderstanding in this respect. The czech republic and chechnya are two very different entities - the czech republic is a central european country; chechnya is a part of the russian federation.
    As the president of the czech republic miloš zeman noted in his message to president obama, the czech republic is an active and reliable partner of the united states in the fight against terrorism. We are determined to stand side by side with our allies in this respect, there is no doubt about that.

    Petr gandalovič
    ambassador of the czech republic
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymouse01)
    I'm guessing you've all heard the theory that it was set up by the government, as swat teams were seen on the day with same backpacks

    Facebook have blocked the swat team conspiracy from being posted. Facebook is owned by the CIA. Definitely something fishy

    Opinions


    Posted from TSR iPad
    The brothers also had backpacks. In fact, DZOKHAR is seen dropping the bag off right behind the boy that subsequently died.

    Here is TAMERLAN's Youtube page. Full of terrorist playslists, favoruties of Islamic extremists preaching hatred. Coincidence? I think not. He also has a video with is linked to Al Qaeda.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/muazseyfullah

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...an_718071.html


    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anonymouse01)
    I'm guessing you've all heard the theory that it was set up by the government, as swat teams were seen on the day with same backpacks

    Facebook have blocked the swat team conspiracy from being posted. Facebook is owned by the CIA. Definitely something fishy

    Opinions


    Posted from TSR iPad
    my opinion is that conspiracy theorists are ****wits and losers.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MattKneale)
    I agree with all your points, though we should point out there are hints of suspicion that these guys might not have done what they did without external backing. I'm saying that's definitively the case as we don't know, but if it were true that might become more of an issue of national security.
    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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by slickrick666999)
    The brothers also had backpacks. In fact, DZOKHAR is seen dropping the bag off right behind the boy that subsequently died.

    Here is TAMERLAN's Youtube page. Full of terrorist playslists, favoruties of Islamic extremists preaching hatred. Coincidence? I think not. He also has a video with is linked to Al Qaeda.

    http://www.youtube.com/user/muazseyfullah

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...an_718071.html


    You got it. This is the reply I was looking for.
    Just playing devils advocate btw


    Posted from TSR iPad
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexandrTheGreat)
    See my comment above. Your understanding of American law is demonstrably superficial (and clearly wiki-ed).

    I'm happy to offer odds if you want to put your money where your mouth is (say 3:1 to make it attractive. If it's guaranteed like you believe, then you have nothing to lose and 300% profits to gain)

    Edit: I hasten to add, the proceeds would be donated to an anti-death penalty charity
    Let's just wait until they charge him, it will surely determine who's right.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    My previous post obviously meant to have a "not" in there somewhere haha.

    I think a death penalty would be far more likely if he were tried under state law in any other state, but evidently that won't happen in Massachusetts. Lest we forget the last federal execution was in 2003; it's a pretty rare event in the grand scheme of things.

    I agree that just because people want him to be tried and executed for his crimes, that doesn't mean it will happen. 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.

    If I were to hazard a guess:
    -If they were lone criminals without outside help from a foreign agency or extremist group, they'll be tried for murder, mayhem, conducting and planning terrorist acts and grand theft.

    -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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (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:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's a conspiracy when they want it to be a conspiracy...When they want the version of events to fit a different bill.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (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...4.html#Bfo0OcN
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Guess religion.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (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?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 22, 2013
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.