RE: Justice in Boston (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Aswad -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 5:26:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: deathtothepixies

Just out of interest when does a bomb or similar device become a weapon of mass destruction? 9/11 was just laidback fireworks but thousands died. I know it wasn't on the same scale as Japan but...... just wondering?


I answered this in my post: it becomes a weapon of mass destruction when it exceeds the capacity of any single human to comprehend (or even approximate) the scope and depth of the destruction. At the moment, the only weapons that qualify are thermobaric bombs, nuclear bombs, the largest scale chemical warheads and some of he worst biological agents. The US remains the only nation to have deployed a WMD against a civilian population (though the USSR was willing to do so in Afghanistan; they just decided it wasn't possible to win, which GWB's advisors knew when the US moved in there).

9/11 was a big tragedy, but by no means beyond comprehension. That disqualifies it as mass destruction.

Let me use another point for comparison: water. You can have a drop of water (Boston), a cup of water (Sandy Hook), or a pitcher of water (9/11), but none of these are a river (Afghanistan), let alone an ocean (Hiroshima or Nagasaki). There's also the rock comparison. You can have a pebble, a rock, a mountain, an asteroid or a planet (e.g. Earth). We have very different words for them, because there is a difference that is qualitative in nature, not just quantitative.

So, too, we have a seperate term for mass destruction (or, rather, weapons of mass destruction), because it's not just a matter of scale. The Aztec sacrifices were on par with the Holocaust, on a day by day death toll basis, but lasted a lot shorter, and had more unpleasant deaths by far. Yet, there's a qualitative difference. The Armenian Holocaust is a case which resembles the German Holocaust. The German Holocaust exceeded Hiroshima in casualties, but as an ongoing thing.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki stand alone in the annals of history as man-made events of mass destruction. Each day throughout the Holocaust, we can comprehend, as too can we comprehend the conditions in the camp and the eventual scope. We cannot, however, comprehend the scale and depth of the destruction unleashed in those two flashes we call Little Boy and Fat Man. It just sweeps humanity off the table altogether, in one brief instant.

I hope that delineates the difference between massive (adjective) destruction and mass destruction (compound noun).

IWYW,
— Aswad.




tj444 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 6:05:47 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

granted it doesnt have the same "impact" as flying an airplane into a high-rise office tower.. or a nuke going off.. or a truck bomb.. the word "bomb" does carry a certain emotional impact tho, even if the actual destruction isnt all that massive..


You just did it again. You compared the laidback fireworks of 9/11 and Oklahoma with the mass destruction of Hiroshima.


no i didnt, off course there are differences in the effects of various bombs... I was explaining the American legal definition of a wmd which the bombs and grenades they used fits the definition so would be the reason the bomber might be charged with using one.. whether that is right or wrong, thats how the US govt sees stuff.. other govts might define them differently but the guy is here in the US so its their definition, their charges against him.. stop reading more into what i said than i did..

whats wrong with you today?



Aswad -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 7:20:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tj444

I was explaining the American legal definition of a wmd


You might want to clarify that in the future. I do see now how your statement could be read that way. At the time, though, I didn't see that, nor did the three native speakers I consulted with to make sure I wasn't blowing up in your face without good reason. My mistake in misreading it.

quote:

whats wrong with you today?


What's wrong with me today is that people are making the Boston thing out to be more than an omnidirectional shotgun blast that killed three people, even throwing terms like WMD around, much like the folks in West/TX commented that it was "like a nuclear bomb", which just floors me in so many ways, none of them flattering.

You're just getting caught in that because of a misreading. In the future, «i think a bomb would be considered a wmd» could be clearer as «i think they/police would consider[...]», or «[...]considered a wmd by the police», in conveying that you don't agree with such a ridiculous assessment by the law in your country.

Assuming I'm reading you correctly now, that you find the term WMD ludicrous to use for these things...

... I humbly apologize for being an ass.

IWYW,
— Aswad.



tj444 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 8:47:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

What's wrong with me today is that people are making the Boston thing out to be more than an omnidirectional shotgun blast that killed three people, even throwing terms like WMD around, much like the folks in West/TX commented that it was "like a nuclear bomb", which just floors me in so many ways, none of them flattering.

You're just getting caught in that because of a misreading. In the future, «i think a bomb would be considered a wmd» could be clearer as «i think they/police would consider[...]», or «[...]considered a wmd by the police», in conveying that you don't agree with such a ridiculous assessment by the law in your country.

Assuming I'm reading you correctly now, that you find the term WMD ludicrous to use for these things...

... I humbly apologize for being an ass.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


well,.. imo the US govt goes overboard all the time.. if 10 charges against someone would do the job (& put them in jail for life) thats not good enough if they can dig up another 30 extra charges for good measure.. that is what they are doing in this case, throwing the biggest book at him they can to put him away forever (or even give him the death penalty?) & be a warning to anyone else thinking of doing the same as he did.. I personally do not consider these bombs or grenades to be wmd, but I am not the govt.. I dont agree with a lotta stuff they do.. and btw, this is not my country, I am not an American (I am Canadian).. just here for a short time, not permanently!..



Aswad -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/22/2013 9:03:25 PM)

Agreed, tj444.

And the strategy of throwing everything they can at them isn't exactly a new one. Where I live, terms are served in parallell, so they're not concerned with trumping up every charge possible. The whole thing reminds me of the recent case where this carpenter got stuck with over twice the jail term of the organized crime folks he had done carpentry for, simply because the cops wanted to push him into cooperating on a sting (he didn't, because doing so would've been a death sentence, at best, for him and his family).

When punishing people becomes more important than having a functioning society, you get the situation Russia had.

Not a road most sane countries want to go down.

IWYW,
— Aswad.




angelikaJ -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 6:24:23 AM)

Aswad,

The last count I read was that 264 people were injured; 180 were hospitalised.
51 are still hospitalised.
3 are in critical condition and 5 are "serious".
14 people have lost part or all of a limb and 3 people lost more than one.
Many of those with "traumatic amputations" will have more surgeries ahead of them.

Others had soft tissue damage so severe that they were on ventilators, there was a 3 year old little boy with bleeding on his brain and a 4 year old girl whose body was riddled with nails.


Today people who own or operate businesses and those who lived in the areas that sustained damage from the bombs will be walked through the buildings.


Is is Hiroshima or Nagasaki?
No.

Nor is it the equivalent of turning airplanes into massive bombs.

But somehow, this does not feel like a couple of shotgun blasts to me and the people who were awoken to the sound of pipe bombs and grenades going off in their residential neighborhoods overnight on Thursday probably don't think so either.



tweakabelle -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 7:25:52 AM)

Charging this thug with wmd does sound like overkill to me. Why was this preferred to 3 counts of murder and other charges (eg. causing an explosion in a public place), all of them on the statute books and used in similar cases against other home grown mass killers?

In fact, the whole reaction of the authorities in Boston seems like massive overkill to me. Was it really necessary to lock down the entire city to catch a pair of incompetent amateurs? I wonder if any of it was driven by the PR Dept? Or a legal Dept that was trying to avoid future lawsuits? Or just plain panic?



LafayetteLady -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 7:38:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

Here are the Miranda rights issues that I am aware of in this case. Quite frankly, I'm surprised you weren't aware that this was an issue here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/19/miranda-rights-boston-bombing-suspect_n_3120333.html

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/295139-aclu-calls-for-miranda-rights-for-boston-bombing-suspect



The rights that the Miranda rights protects are the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney. You need to re-read Miranda v. Arizona as I don't think you understand the constitutional grounding of the so-called Miranda "rights".




And you clearly do not understand the Public Safety Exception. Miranda is not being denied, it is being delayed, while they ask him questions about other potential bombs or bombers.

Regardless, he always has the right not to speak, something he likely learned in his Citizenship test a mere 6 months ago.

Now, should he repeatedly say, "I did it, I created the bombs and planted them to go off at the marathon," do you think his rights have been violated? I'm sure you. Except for one thing. They won't be able to use that statement at trial. Therefore, he is protected from self-incrimination.

As for his right to an attorney, his father claims to be an attorney. His father lived here for many years. Why hasn't he contacted one of his lawyer buddies to protect his son? Of course, the kid could write down very easily, "I want an attorney."

Quoting the law and citing a case that every first year law student knows by heart means nothing when you don't understand what it says. In simple terms (pay attention to the bold parts):

statements made in response to interrogation by a defendant in police custody will be admissible at trial only if the prosecution can show that the defendant was informed of the right to consult with an attorney before and during questioning and of the right against self-incrimination prior to questioning by police, and that the defendant not only understood these rights, but voluntarily waived them...

If they aren't using his statements at trial, what he says means little in terms of Miranda.

Do you understand now, or do you need it explained in further detail?



angelikaJ -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 7:44:19 AM)

FR

He was read his Miranda rights yesterday.



YN -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 8:24:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Charging this thug with wmd does sound like overkill to me. Why was this preferred to 3 counts of murder and other charges (eg. causing an explosion in a public place), all of them on the statute books and used in similar cases against other home grown mass killers?

In fact, the whole reaction of the authorities in Boston seems like massive overkill to me. Was it really necessary to lock down the entire city to catch a pair of incompetent amateurs? I wonder if any of it was driven by the PR Dept? Or a legal Dept that was trying to avoid future lawsuits? Or just plain panic?


I agree with your first paragraph.

As to the second, recall the pair shot and killed one policeman, critically injured another, and had several additional gunfights with the police. Additionally they tossed other similar explosive devices at the police and there was evidence one had a suicide munition. This does not forclude a car hijacking and robbery, the depraved acts at the Boston Marathon and so on from the consideration.




YN -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 8:41:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Aswad

Agreed, tj444.

And the strategy of throwing everything they can at them isn't exactly a new one. Where I live, terms are served in parallell, so they're not concerned with trumping up every charge possible. The whole thing reminds me of the recent case where this carpenter got stuck with over twice the jail term of the organized crime folks he had done carpentry for, simply because the cops wanted to push him into cooperating on a sting (he didn't, because doing so would've been a death sentence, at best, for him and his family).

When punishing people becomes more important than having a functioning society, you get the situation Russia had.

Not a road most sane countries want to go down.

IWYW,
— Aswad.





What do you think the appropriate punishment should be?



DaddySatyr -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 8:46:50 AM)

"Throwing the book at 'em" is a common ploy used by prosecutors who get promotions from their conviction rate.

They charge you with crimes (that they may or may not be able to convict you of) that may total up to 25 years and then, they offer a "plea bargain". This allows them to maximize the amount of "convictions" they can get in the shortest amount of time. It's one of the things that (I think) is wrong with our system.

There are people who cannot afford to defend themselves against multiple crimes and they wind up taking the plea bargin because they're scared they may lose if they roll the dice on the whole kit and kaboodle.

A pox on lawyers.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



tj444 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 8:49:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

Charging this thug with wmd does sound like overkill to me. Why was this preferred to 3 counts of murder and other charges (eg. causing an explosion in a public place), all of them on the statute books and used in similar cases against other home grown mass killers?

In fact, the whole reaction of the authorities in Boston seems like massive overkill to me. Was it really necessary to lock down the entire city to catch a pair of incompetent amateurs? I wonder if any of it was driven by the PR Dept? Or a legal Dept that was trying to avoid future lawsuits? Or just plain panic?

Thats the way the US justice system works.. I have read that MA doesnt have the death penalty, so it could be that this charge is the only way for them do use the death penalty as a club and potential punishment.. part is its a negotiation tactic to hit the accussed with as much as possible and see if he will accept a plea bargin.. saving taxpayers the cost of a trial, etc.. of course if that doesnt work, they are prepared to go full steam ahead..

http://news.yahoo.com/next-boston-bombing-suspect-021835222.html



angelikaJ -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 9:08:23 AM)

FR

There was a discussion on this morning's The Take Away on the topic of what is a WMD?

Here is that segment: http://www.thetakeaway.org/2013/apr/23/what-is-a-weapon-of-mass-destruction/

The Take Away encourages participation via comments, tweets and calls and discussions are often carried over several days.



LafayetteLady -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 9:33:56 AM)

It doesn't matter what Massachusetts has or doesn't have. This is a Federal Case, and at the Federal Level, there is a death penalty.



tj444 -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 9:37:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

It doesn't matter what Massachusetts has or doesn't have. This is a Federal Case, and at the Federal Level, there is a death penalty.

It apparently (according to the link I included above) has not been determined yet if the death penalty will be sought or not..



angelikaJ -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 9:39:39 AM)

That there is a death penalty available does not automatically mean that either the Federal Government will ask for one or the jury will sentence that.

There has been no commitment by the Federal prosecutor to ask for the death penalty... yet.




LafayetteLady -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 9:41:41 AM)

But it is one of the reason they used the weapons of mass destruction. It is one of the criteria that makes the death penalty an option.



kdsub -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 1:33:09 PM)

quote:

What's wrong with me today is that people are making the Boston thing out to be more than an omnidirectional shotgun blast that killed three people, even throwing terms like WMD around, much like the folks in West/TX commented that it was "like a nuclear bomb", which just floors me in so many ways, none of them flattering.


So... 3 dead... 14 that had limbs blown from their bodies some with multiple limbs amputated...282 with serious injuries...is this not enough to be called a weapon of mass destruction? What an outrageous comment.

Butch



VideoAdminChi -> RE: Justice in Boston (4/23/2013 1:38:18 PM)

FR,

Ahem.

[sm=adminwatch.gif]



Page: <<   < prev  2 3 4 [5] 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875