home

Obama Press Conference on Boston Bombing Suspect

President Obama is speaking now.

There are unanswered questions. Why did these men resort to violence? How did they plan it? Did they receive help?

Public safety is at risk and we will investigate. We won't rush to judgment about their motivations.

It's important that we do this right.

He talks about the victims and then the people in West Texas.

Buzz word: "Public safety." He won't be given Miranda rights. They will invoke the public safety exception to Miranda. See NY v. Quarles. The High Value Detainee Interrogation Group will do the questioning. Then they will mirandize him. (There is no set limit but it is thought to be around 48 hours.) The most recent high profile case it was used in was that of underwear bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmuttalab. Opinion here.

Question: When will the Federal Defender get to see him?

< Boston: It's Over, Suspect Alive and In Custody | Boston Bombing Developments: Saturday >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    A better question, Jeralyn, is (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:36:18 PM EST
    Will he survive his wounds?

    I hope he does because regardless of how much or how little Due Process he gets (and I want him to get FULL Due Process) our only hope of finding out WHY would seem to be with him.

    finding out his motive (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:39:33 PM EST
    may be your concern. My concern is with the legal process. That's the focus of TalkLeft.


    Parent
    To be fair then (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Slayersrezo on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 09:58:58 PM EST
    There's no real reason to even care if he lives or dies. Indeed, if he dies both of our questions are meaningless.

    Thus, for both our sakes we better hope he lives.

    Parent

    I think that's short-sighted (none / 0) (#19)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:51:25 AM EST
    I realize TalkLeft is a legal site. He needs a fair and legal trial, for us as a society as much as for him. But this trial will come. This trial will go. The larger issues surrounding these -- I don't even know what to call them, 'crimes' doesn't seem even to begin to describe it -- including his and his brother's motivations, are in my opinion more important than the legal proceedings against this individual.

    Parent
    It is reported that the elder brother (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:15:17 AM EST
    spent 6 months in Russia and was changed when he returned. To me it is plain that he was turned into a Muslim radical and then recruited his little brother.

    They then became terrorists.

    The larger question then is this. What is it in Islam that turns these people into terrorists??

    That question needs asking. That question needs answering. And pretending that the problem will go away by calling the two brothers "students" without mentioning who they really are will not make the problem go away.

    Parent

    Putting any label on them without non-speculative (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:24:42 AM EST
    information about motive is a bad idea. I don't understand the rush to do that.

    Parent
    Disagree (none / 0) (#31)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:21:16 AM EST
    .

    Both were educated in American public schools of excellent reputation. It seems whatever education they received it was insufficient to reject a murderous ideology.

    .

    Parent

    Oyyyyyy (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:42:23 AM EST
    Your attempts to use this incident to indict the public school system are just silly.  This is not the responsibility of their school, let alone "American public schools", anymore than a murderous rampage at a private, Christian school is an indictment of private (or Christian) schools.

    Parent
    We disagree (1.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:39:06 AM EST
    .

    K-12 education failed these two badly.  Not the whole public school system, but those schools in particular.  

    It is an undeniable and obvious fact that the education these two received left them illequipped to resist a murderous ideology.  We have a public education system for a greater purpose than simply being a funding source for thew Dem party.

    .

    Parent

    And there it is (5.00 / 4) (#55)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:48:16 AM EST
    Anger and resentment of the public school system ("a funding source for the Dem party") is the motive to try to blame public schools for these crimes.

    Almost as ridiculous as it is transparent.

    It is an undeniable and obvious fact that the education these two received left them illequipped to resist a murderous ideology.

    No it's not.  I deny it.

    Gratuitous assertions can simply be denied.
     

    Parent

    Really? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:00:49 AM EST
    Because Josh's advanced science teacher here informed the class that she would not be teaching evolution.  Apparently the state legislature is working hard to make that her call too.

    I phoned the school's guidance counselor and told her that I did not expect her to fix this, my son just wants to know if he will find himself in a bind on required national testing.  The guidance counselor checked for me and at this time he is safe.  I will teach my son evolution and about Charles Darwin.  I don't need these idiots anywhere near my child's deeper belief system.

    Icing on the cake though.  The teacher also demanded that hands be raised in her class as to who thought evolution is untrue and a sinful belief.  Now that's bullying and I will not put up with it!  Do that one more time, I'll give her one more chance, and she is done!!!!

    Wish my child could go to school in Cambridge.  What a gift that would be.

    Parent

    She is done?? (none / 0) (#61)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:17:20 AM EST
    And what will you do???

    And you make the larger issue a micro one that is all about you.

    It isn't the failure of your child's school or Cambridge's demonstrated failure... It is the failure of the complete and total system to produce enough functioning citizens grounded in the basic goodness of our system and thus able to reject the call for jihad against the west that is coming from some, not all, Muslim Imams and radicals.

    Parent

    What will I do? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    That is what her God made lawyers for Jim

    Parent
    You don't have to wait (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:41:54 PM EST
    for "one more time," MT - call the ACLU in your state, or Americans United, and describe what happened in your child's classroom.  That is flat out unconstitutional under the First Amendment's Establishment Clause, as interpreted by the federal courts for the last 50 years.  If you want to be incredibly nice about it, you could first call the principal (not just the guidance counselor) and (not or) the superintendent of schools and tell them what happened.  Demand action; the teacher needs to be reprimanded, and re-trained on separation of church and state, at the very least.  

    Parent
    Peter, thank you for your post (none / 0) (#121)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 07:28:13 PM EST
    To me on this.  We are torn right now on how to handle her.  This is a small town and we don't want to paint Joshua as the kid with the problem parents.  He struggles so much to fit in, he is hyper sensitive about that.

    Our entire family discusses the teacher openly, my daughter claims that next year there is another science teacher that will do the same thing and teaches at Dauphin Jr High (if that teacher is still there, I suppose we will find out).  I have to give Josh credit for having a very refined sense of bullying techniques as well as a good BS detector.

    I talked to his school counselor about this briefly.  We are in a very strange situation with Coppinville.  The part of the South we live in has either never evolved or is in a state of some severe backlash IMO.  I wasn't raised here, just transplant, so can't tell for certain.

    Coppinville used to be the black high school, and from what I am told Enterprise only became fully integrated in 1972.  In an attempt to integrate well, Coppinville became the school where every Enterprise 7th grader would spend 7th grade...all together.  So it unites every neighborhood in this town from the poorest to the wealthiest or you would have never achieved true integration at any point during primary education here.  I wish I could tell you that the Coppinville concept is warmly embraced here but it is not.  We were told so many stories about the school being out of control, wild behaviors and violence, that I was scared to send Josh.

    We met with the counselor and the vice principal though and they have handled the challenge of a fragile Joshua in the halls very professionally.  The people who would have to deal with and reprimand this teacher though are almost all black, while this teacher is white.  It is awful to say this, but it is practically a powder keg begging for the fuse to be lit.  I think this teacher is actually attempting to incite some parent to the point that certain events are put into motion and I swear I will not give her the satisfaction of tearing this town apart over this.

    I have spoke very frankly about it with one member of the school staff that would be most challenged and affected.  This teacher has also said some of the most hair raising racist things in her class to her students.  She is literally attempting to incite some kind of social riot.

    If Josh ever becomes comfortable enough with the fight, we will take her on.  I take into consideration though him, and the other school staff that she will attempt to take down with her, and the tearing apart of this town, and for now we choose to speak frankly about it all with everyone who it is safe to speak frankly with.  Truth and sunlight?  For now?

    I will bookmark your comment though for quick immediate action.  I wish I were more brave, I fear collateral damage.  I am not alone though as a parent in this fear here.

    Parent

    I do not disagree, and would not criticize (none / 0) (#128)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:42:35 PM EST
    you for one second for hesitating to act on this issue at this time, under the circumstances and for the reasons you outline.  You are a very insightful person and a very sensitive parent.  I fully understand that you have to pick your battles carefully.  If you ever want to talk privately, ask Jeralyn how to get in touch with me.

    Parent
    Thank you so much (none / 0) (#134)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 10:59:15 AM EST
    Step one revealed.  When we first began facing the problem we didn't really know where to easily find the legal representation needed, but you know.  Thank you!

    Parent
    Bully my disabled child one more time! (none / 0) (#65)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:32:27 AM EST
    Well MT, have at it. (none / 0) (#90)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:41:41 PM EST
    Any attempt by the schools to instill (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:33:32 AM EST
    love of country, even if it is their job, which I don't accept, is easily counteracted by incidents such as the FBI coming to your house and telling you they are watching you because of what you read on line.

    Parent
    If the schools don't do it (none / 0) (#63)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:21:26 AM EST
    who will??? I mean they only have our children 8 hours a day, 5 days a week for 8 months of the year.

    The FBI was there because of a notice from a foreign government. Evidently the notice was correct and the FBI did a miserable job of watching.

    Parent

    Maybe the first conservative ever ... (5.00 / 4) (#76)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:01:35 PM EST
    ... to suggest it's the school's responsibility to instill moral/ethical/religious values.  Of course, to do so, they'll need to teach students how to reject the murderous ideologies of our own, homegrown terrorists, too (anti-abortionists, militia groups, "sovereign" citizen groups, homophobic "Christian" groups, etc.).

    You might be on to something ...

    Parent

    But I saw his parents in Russia said he was with (none / 0) (#32)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:21:42 AM EST
    family the whole time he was there, and they did not think that he did anything to get together with radicals when he was there. Not saying he was not radical, but it is not clear that trip had much to do with it.

    Lots left to learn.

    Parent

    His Uncle here claims (none / 0) (#56)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:50:18 AM EST
    He was "mentored" here, and that was when they noticed his language evolving into something a little radical.  He seems to believe that the mentor with the most radical influence over the older brother was of Armenian descent?

    Parent
    Finding the WHY (1.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 07:53:57 AM EST
    .

    IMHO, the most important thing to discover is why our education system failed so tragically to assimilate these two young men.  

    .

    Parent

    Assimilate them into what? (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 08:51:23 AM EST
    And how is that the job of the 'education system'?

    Parent
    Molly, part of the job that our schools (2.33 / 3) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    are supposed to do, and use to do, is to turn children into reasonably well educated adults who appreciate and love the society they live in.

    That that society may be imperfect is true, but the child must learn that while imperfect, democracy is the best of all possible worlds.

    We are failing.

    We are failing because we emphasize the problems and harp upon the past by judging 19th century actions by present day standards. We are failing by teaching that there are no absolutes and all societies, cultures and governments are morally equivalent to ours and that there is no base for our ethics only "situations."

    Parent

    No, we're not (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    We are failing because we emphasize the problems and harp upon the past by judging 19th century actions by present day standards. We are failing by teaching that there are no absolutes and all societies, cultures and governments are morally equivalent to ours and that there is no base for our ethics only "situations."

    Our schools are doing no such thing, but the obvious contradiction between your first and second sentences was amusing.

    Parent

    Actually, you are referring (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:00:54 AM EST
    to 18th-century thinking about education.

    Psssst:  That was three centuries ago.

    Parent

    Pssst.... And it produced a society that (1.00 / 3) (#59)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    gave its all to free the world from the "isms" of Communism, Nazism and Fascism.

    Sadly it has been replaced by a system that is demonstrably failing to do anything but produce people that are easy to convince to do the bidding of radicals and kill others while being killed themselves.

    Are you proud of what we have become??

    Parent

    I am proud to help students (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:42:43 AM EST
    learn to ask good questions, including (and especially) of our government, which is what our Founders asked of us.  I am proud to help them learn the skills to find the answers on their own, as I have very little time with them to help them to learn.

    Really, think about it.  You are claiming that civics and perhaps U.S. history are taught eight hours a day.  What, no world history, no math, no science, no languages, no geography, no arts, etc.?  Those are required in the curricula, while civics may (check your state) be mandated in one grade.  And you really need to read up on the studies of the decreasing requirements for U.S. history, because we need you to fight for it, too.

    Parent

    No I made no claim that civics (none / 0) (#86)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:35:52 PM EST
    is taught 8 hours a day.

    I just don't want things like this:

    A political science professor at Butler University asks students to disregard their "American-ness, maleness, whiteness, heterosexuality, middle-class status" when writing and speaking in the classroom - a practice the school's arts and sciences dean defended as a way to negate students' inherent prejudices.

    Link

    or this:

    In a linked video, an obviously incompetent teacher bellows "You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this class!" after students asked questions about Obama's admission that he bullied a girl in high school in response to the teacher bringing up what she called a "fact of the day" -- that Romney had been a bully in high school. (emphasis mine)

    The teacher became indignant, and said,
    "Obama is our friend!"
     "Obama is the president!"


    Link

    And I sure don't want this:

    "My name is Ahlima and I live in Saudi Arabia. ... Perhaps two differences Westerners would notice are that women here do not drive cars and they wear abuyah. An abuyah is a loose-fitting black cloth that covers a woman from head to toe. I like wearing the abuyah since it is very comfortable, and I am protected from blowing sand. ... I have seen pictures of women in the West and find their dress to be horribly immodest. ... Women in the West do not have the protection of the Sharia as we do here. If our marriage has problems, my husband can take another wife rather than divorce me, and I would still be cared for. ... I feel very fortunate that we have the Sharia."

    Link

    Parent

    There is no point in engaging anyone who (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:47:57 PM EST
    blames American public schools for, and sees them as instrumental in, moving us closer to Sharia law.

    I am heartily sorry that you so fear the ability to think that you'd prefer that our schools be indoctrinating rather than teaching.

    Contrary to what you have expressed, jim, it isn't the schools' job to teach my children from a religious perspective; if I want my children to have a religious education, I can teach them myself, or take them to church.

    Reading your comments is an eye-opening look into such a deep-seated prejudice I truly do not understand how you can claim such moral superiority.

    Parent

    Anne, where did I say the schools should (none / 0) (#119)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 07:11:45 PM EST
    teach from a religious perspective??

    Of course I didn't. You, with your bias and built in fear of the religious Right, just assume that anyone who complains about what is being taught wants to replace with a theocracy.

    The only people I know who are demanding that schools accept religious rules are Muslims.

    JOHN GIBSON, HOST: The big issue, separation of church and state in America's state schools, of course, but there isn't going to be a separation of mosque and state at one public college in Minnesota. The school is going to install a special sink or several for Muslims to wash their feet, and taxpayers are going to have to foot the bill.

    Link

    And then...

    After subbing at Carver, the teacher claimed that religious indoctrination was taking place and said that a school aide had led Muslim students in prayer....

    snip

    An investigation by the San Diego Unified School District failed to substantiate the allegations. But critics continue to assail Carver for providing a 15-minute break in the classroom each afternoon to accommodate Muslim students who wish to pray. (Those who don't pray can read or write during that non-instructional time.)

    Link

    What I want is the basics taught with NO politics. NO religion. That's how it was when I went to school and that's what we need now.


    Parent

    I guess if you don't know about something (5.00 / 2) (#137)
    by MO Blue on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 02:44:20 PM EST
    it just doesn't exist.

    The only people I know who are demanding that schools accept religious rules are Muslims.

    In the first three months of 2011, legislators in at least seven US states introduced "stealth creationism bills" - legislation that, if it doesn't outright mandate the teaching of intelligent design in public schools, includes carefully-worded provisions that protect educators who do it.....
    ...
    In some states, more explicit legislation gives up the game: Kentucky law authorizes "the theory of creation as presented in the Bible" and to "read such passages in the Bible as are deemed necessary for instruction on the theory of creation." The influential Texas Board of Education, which has been a champion of teaching creationism in public schools, also approved requirements that force public high schools to teach Bible classes. link

    Parent

    Then you must not want ... (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:26:34 PM EST
    ... this:

    Teacher allegedly tells students Muslims, Arabs are `just like Hitler'

    or this:

    Teacher Called Muslim Student A Terrorist

    or this:

    Louisiana Teacher Allegedly Tells Students `Obama's re-election is America's funeral'

    Seriously - absolutely no one is arguing against teaching the positive aspects of democracy and our country.  OTOH - we want students who can think critically and aren't afraid to be critical when they see our government doing things that are wrong.  We also don't want our kids to become Islamaphobic by listening to idiots who beat the drums of "Shariah Law!" constantly.  Although, to be fair, by the time they get to high school ...

    ... most kids are far too smart for that .

    Parent

    Yman, I;ll break my rule of ignoring you. (none / 0) (#115)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:26:23 PM EST
    Because I agree I would not.

    Does that surprise you? Probably because your Jones for me is so great it blocks out the sun.

    Parent

    If you're gonna break it, Jim (none / 0) (#126)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:15:23 PM EST
    You should at least try to make a point.

    Parent
    Yman, the point was (1.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 03:50:18 PM EST
    I would not want them to teach from any religious position.....

    Of course you knew that but even when I agreed with you you just had to be snarky.

    Which is why I put you on the "Do Not Reply" shelf.

    And is why I have put you back.

    Parent

    Your points are anything but obvious, Jim (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 04:03:06 PM EST
    Particularly since two of your three examples above had nothing at all to do with religion.

    But it doesn't matter if you put me "back on the shelf", Jim.  I know you'll still be reading my posts and responding in your passive-aggressive indirect way by responding to others.  :)

    Parent

    This is probably a waste of time, but one question (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by womanwarrior on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:59:40 PM EST
    Why do you think the schools have the job to teach right and wrong, and not the parents?  Really?

    Parent
    I didn't say the parents don't have the (1.00 / 2) (#116)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:28:31 PM EST
    responsibility to teach their children right and wrong.

    Where did you get such?? Is it because I note how the school system has far too many people of the Left teaching them the wrong things?

    Parent

    Oy (none / 0) (#62)
    by sj on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:20:45 AM EST
    Jim, please hold that thought for a sec, ... (none / 0) (#88)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:38:07 PM EST
    ... while I go to the kitchen and make some more popcorn.

    Parent
    You can pop popcorn? (none / 0) (#91)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:42:54 PM EST
    Who would have thunk it.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Wow. (5.00 / 5) (#102)
    by Dr Molly on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:32:38 PM EST
    Out of all the things that could be discussed about this terrible event, I sure did not expect this to be about the failure of public schools.

    Parent
    Give them time.. (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 01:48:44 PM EST
    they'll get to multiculturalism, secularism, the War on Christian Holidays, unions, textbooks that nurture disrespect for authority, neopagan left wing scientists..

    And if their old friend Rev Falwell were still here, he'd be blaming the gays and lesbians..

    Parent

    So we (none / 0) (#111)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:43:55 PM EST
    should be teaching the kids that African Americans were really better off as slaves? Of course, everything is looked at in terms of today because we've moved forward and learned more thing. I mean do you look at Medieval times and wish you were back there or something.

    Parent
    Actually Ga there were hundreds of thousands (none / 0) (#117)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:33:26 PM EST
    of Americans who thought slavery was wrong AT THAT TIME and not only taught it to be wrong, they fought and died to end it in the US.

    The issue isn't seeing the evils of the past through the lens of today's standards, it is the continual drum beat that America, and the west, is bad today because of what was done in the past.

    It has even produced us a President.

    Parent

    Oh good grief (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 07:59:46 PM EST
    The problem is that there are people that still think that stuff WAS good even though they were told it was wrong in school. Families have a lot more influence on this kind of stuff in my experience than the school system. I mean look at some of tea partiers are screaming about Obama. These are older people that were supposedly taught "morals" in school and schools were supposedly "better" back then but these people can't believe that Obama is a US citizen. Don't you think that racism is learned from their parents and not the schools?

    So let's just pretend that everything is perfect when it's not is what you are saying. You want some sort of Orwellian country where people chant what's on the overhead projector all day. Criticizing something does not mean that you don't like it. Not criticizing has gotten us into a lot of messes. Do you did you hate your children when you disciplined them? I believe you have take everything and see it for what it is, the good and the bad. Our country is not perfect. Nothing is.

    Parent

    Good grief?? Yes, good grief that you (1.00 / 2) (#130)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:22:11 AM EST
    continue to display the very attitude that I protest. The "America is bad because what our ancestors did" attitude that is so much a part of our schools and public life.

    And you continue to repeat what I have not said. No where have I said that parents should not teach their children morals and no where have I said the schools should teach religion.

    And now you seek to find moral equivalency between some who disagree with your politics and evil.

    On the one hand you want to shut down these while claiming that it is okay for the New Black Panthers to intimidate voters and offer dead or alive rewards for Zimmerman.

    You may protest that you do not but that is the result of years and years of politically correct education.

    Parent

    When you write comments like this, it's (5.00 / 7) (#131)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:45:08 AM EST
    hard not to think you are anything more than a caricature of the conservative southerner; what's sad is that that's apparently who you really are. And there are a lot more just like you.

    I could put Ga6th's comments under a microscope and never, ever find a claim that it's "okay for the New Black Panthers to intimidate voters and offer dead or alive rewards for Zimmerman."

    I hate to break it to you, but censoring textbooks to leave out important chunks of our history, or refusing to teach evolution, or ignoring science in favor of crackpot ideas, are not examples of fixing the political correctness to which you object, but the kinds of things that deprive our children of a full and complete education.

    No one's going to change your mind - that we already know - but no one's going to let you get away with presenting your neanderthal theories as fact, either.  Maybe it would be easier to read your nonsense if we all pretended it was entertainment, but you know, some things just aren't all that funny.  

    Parent

    Anne, I realize your (1.00 / 2) (#144)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 04:05:45 PM EST
    bias paints the world to suit you.

    Parent
    Ooh, Boy (none / 0) (#146)
    by NYShooter on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:29:06 PM EST
    got you good there, Anne.

    I see it left you speechless.

    Lol

    Parent

    So not (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 02:35:13 PM EST
    perfect equals bad in your mind? That's really a stretch.

    Jim, I have no problem with the tea party disagreeing but they aren't just disagreeing, they are FLAT MAKING crap up. That is where i have the problem.

    The whole Black Panther thing was a fraud but this is yet another example of the tea party believing things that are not true. Did you not see the tape? They guy opened the door for an old lady and that is somehow intimidating voters??? That's is just insane. The problem is that YOU are threatened by this kind of stuff and seem to be extrapolating it to other things.

    Politically correct? That phrase is just a bunch of B.S. that comes out of the right wing. They want to scream that anybody who doesn't think we should routinely round up all the Muslims in this country is doing it because they are "PC". Have you ever heard of due process? Oh, yeah, that's right due process should only be for the people who you see at the "Right kind of Americans". If that can be done to one group, it can also be done to another. The people who scram about PC are just people who want America to be the way it was in the 50's. Well, Jim, I hate to tell you but it's not going to be 1950 ever again.

    Parent

    Uh GA, speaking of making things up... (1.00 / 4) (#143)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 04:03:41 PM EST
    There is no Tea Party. There are a bunch of loosely organized people and groups who call themselves various names.

    Some of them may act as ignorant and uneducated as

    this.

    You know my base point was that the two young men were not assimilated and because of this were easy pickings for some radical Muslim who turned them into Muslim terrorists. The result?? Pools of blood and scattered body parts and dead people.

    That is an indisputable fact.

    It is my belief that this is possible because our schools no longer teach that America is good, but specialize in teaching that America is bad.

    That needs to be stopped. And it has nothing to do with the 50's or Christianity or denying that times have changed.  

    Save the "fixing the world" for adults.

    Parent

    "Schools no longer teachh that America is (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by Anne on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 04:55:22 PM EST
    good?"  Really?  Care to give some examples of curricula that take that approach?

    I hope you don't mind if we don't hold our breath while we wait for you to provide some links...

    How do you answer the mass shootings that have taken place by American-from-birth individuals?  Was this an assimilation problem rooted in the public schools' failure to properly indoctrinate them in the glories of America?  

    What's next, jim?  Eradicating mental illness through teaching our children about the greatness of America?  

    Again, show me where and in what schools children are being taught that America is bad.

    Unless and until you do that, I'll just chalk this latest offering from you as more Conversations from Jim's A$$.

    Parent

    Getting nasty, eh?? (1.00 / 1) (#157)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    When that happens we can be assured that the person knows they have lost the debate.

    Anne, our schools are rife with people who have taken the activism of the colleges and moved it into the K-12.

    The results are an under educated over politicized population that is easily swayed into believing whatever the latest hate huckster is selling.

    Proof?? Start with the two Boston murders. Look at OWS and its off shoots. Even Bill Maher is becoming disgusted with what's going on.

    Link

    BTW, your little nasty made me think of this.


    Parent

    The Boston murders are not proof (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 09:31:28 AM EST
    of the assertion you seem so desperate to legitimize, and now you want to drag OWS into it?

    And, sorry, but what gets Bill Maher's shorts in a knot is of no concern to me.

    Show us some examples of public school curricula with an "America is bad" focus, and then we'll have something to talk about.

    Parent

    If you can't find a SINGLE example ... (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Yman on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 09:37:16 AM EST
    ... to back up your claim:

    It is my belief that this is possible because our schools no longer teach that America is good, but specialize in teaching that America is bad.

    ... then we can be assured that you know you've lost the debate, and your claim is just something you made up.

    BTW - Your little diversionary rant made me think of this.

    Parent

    There is a tea (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:35:29 PM EST
    party and the fact that you are saying there isn't is making stuff up. They are an organization with leaders and everything. They endorse candidates.

    Huh? They were assimilated. You obviously don't know what you're talking about. From what I read they got involved in fundamentalism a few years ago. As a matter of fact, the aunt said that the older one married a Christian. Would you say that Timothy McVeigh or Eric Rudolph failed to assimilate? Answer that question.

    You apparently don't think that any person who doesn't fit your mold did not assimilate. Again, you're talking like the typical southern conservative who says the same things about African Americans because they don't do things exactly the way you think she should be.

    There is nowhere they are teaching that "America is bad". So what do you want? Some whitewashed history pretending that America is perfect? You know that's what the old Soviet Union did. They were told that their country was perfect when it was not.

    Parent

    GA, when you say there is a Tea Party (none / 0) (#156)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:47:08 AM EST
    you are trying to say that there is something like a political party.

    There isn't. And you understand that and since you do, what you are doing is making things up.

    No where have I mentioned race. That you must do so is typical of too many on the Left and displays how desperate you are.

    Black culture is totally American and has a rich history in all areas of our country.

    The two murderers did not assimilate. Their rejection was of our culture.

    McVeigh's problem was with the government's actions.

    Rudolph's problem was that he was anti-gay and anti-abortion.

    BTW - The older one was arrested for domestic violence so he couldn't have bought the guns he used from a gun dealer.

    Parent

    No (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 10:41:32 AM EST
    I did not say they were a political party. I said they were an ORGANIZATION which they are.

    The reason I mentioned race was being in the south I figured it was something you could understand since I have heard this from a lot of southerners "they can't assimilate into our society because they are "different" meaning they are do not do exactly what "I" think they should do.

    Yeah, i figured you would say the assimilated because they did not look "different". Thanks for proving my point.

    Rudolph exactly mirrors these guys. He was involved in the Christian Identity Movement which is a radical Christian organization. He thought that the country had turned it's back on God. Just replace Rudolph's thinking with the words Allah or Islam and you will come to the same conclusion. Apparently you agree with the far right that anyone who does not fit your mold of what an American should be is not a "real American" or "doesn't share American values" which is bunch of bull hockey.

    This story is no different that the story of almost all terrorists. McVeigh was involved in the militia movement and thought terrorism was a way to further his/their goals. Rudolph was involved in a far right Christian sect who thought terrorism was a way to further his goals or the goals of the group. You really should take off teh blinders and get out of the echo chamber.

    Parent

    Yes.. (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jondee on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 01:56:45 PM EST
    and they'd eventually get to the "New Black Panthers"; who singlehandedly thwarted America's will and got Obama elected.

    Parent
    can we look back (none / 0) (#150)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:11:27 PM EST
    at Kathy Boudin

    bombing suspect gets released from jail, gets a Columbia University teaching position and Robert Redford romanticizes it into a movie, in a theater near you

    Parent

    I'd call you a Neanderthal but that would be an (none / 0) (#113)
    by Angel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:57:38 PM EST
    insult to Neanderthals.

    Parent
    And I would call you an idiot but that (none / 0) (#118)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:35:12 PM EST
    would be an insult to idiots.

    There now. We both have exposed our juvenile side...

    Of course you went first.

    ;-)

    Parent

    Good grief (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:42:11 PM EST
    What happened is they were honor students. People who were friends and schoolmates said that when they were in school with them they were nice polite kids. Apparently something happened after they left the public school system.

    What happened it appears to me is that they got in with a bad crowd. This happens everyday all across the country to young people---drugs, gangs whatever.

    Your statements show why the majority of the people in this country have a low opinion of conservatives and Republicans.

    Parent

    Uh GA, that "wrong crowd" is teaching (none / 0) (#120)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 07:15:36 PM EST
    that it is okay to kill people at sporting events.

    That they may have been honor students has nothing to do with that.

    Parent

    Yes (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 08:04:24 PM EST
    and so do a lot of other things like gangs. I mean more people were killed in Texas by a fertilizer plant  in Texas yet nobody seems to think very much of that.

    Just say the word Muslim in front of a conservative and they will run and hide. After seeing what happened in Boston, I'm thinking it's liberals that have the guts and conservatives are just a bunch of scared little weenies.

    Parent

    Uh, the fertilizer plant was an (1.00 / 1) (#129)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:07:55 AM EST
    accident.

    GA, seeking equivalency between accidents and criminals with people who are acting upon misguided and incorrect religious precepts to kill people in an attempt to terrorize and advance their political agenda is really beneath you.

    I am sadden.  

    Parent

    The West Fertilizer Company failed to report (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by Angel on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:53:03 AM EST
    quantities of materials they were storing at that plant, and that is a violation of law.  The explosion may have been an "accident" but the seriousness of it was exacerbated due to the sheer amount of explosive material they were storing.  

    Parent
    There (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 09:12:25 AM EST
    is some evidence that the explosion was at least partially the result of negligence.

    Negligence by a government agency or by the enterprise itself that results in an explosion that kills people is, imo, criminal.

    Parent

    I didn't say (none / 0) (#139)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 03:41:43 PM EST
    the government wasn't to blame... I just no one did it on purpose. It was an accident. The marathon attack was planned.

    Parent
    If (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by lentinel on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 04:31:54 AM EST
    they purposefully ignored a report of a dangerous condition, what is the difference?

    Parent
    See commets (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 02:25:01 PM EST
    below. It seems that they were negligent but I know in your mind they weren't Muslims so it does not matter. More people were killed by breaking the laws in Texas than in MA.

    I refused to be cowed by those two in MA. More kids were killed in Newtown yet conservatives don't think we should do one thing about that. But by golly if a Muslim does something, we should all cower in fear and hide under the bed covers according to conservatives. Two whacko Muslims do something which kills less people than a kid with an automatic rifle and we're supposed to surrender all our civil liberties.  

    Parent

    Uh conservatives have made numerous (1.00 / 2) (#138)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 03:40:09 PM EST
    suggestions about what to do.

    They range from strict enforcement of EXISTING laws to arming teachers to installing armed guards..

    What you want is a NEW NATIONAL law that can be used to establish a database that will allow the Feds to, sooner or later, know who to take their guns from. Face it. The Left's goal is no private ownership of any kind of gun.

    And no place have I suggested you surrender any of our civil liberties. Why do you make such outlandish claims.

    Parent

    Do you appreciate the irony? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 03:59:06 PM EST
    In the same post in which you complain about someone putting words in your mouth as "outlandish claims", you put thoughts, motives and goals in theirs.

    BTW - More NRA lies


    What you want is a NEW NATIONAL law that can be used to establish a database that will allow the Feds to, sooner or later, know who to take their guns from. Face it. The Left's goal is no private ownership of any kind of gun.

    The national registry lie is just another NRA myth.  It remains illegal to create such a registry, and the proposed law even stiffened the penalty to 15 years in prison to deal with these wingnut rumors.

    But combine a little fear-mongering with a paranoid, ill-informed base, and you're bound to convince some people the lies are true.

    Parent

    what is proper is (none / 0) (#152)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:29:41 PM EST
    a background check, it gives either a green light to purchase or a red light not to sell, works age wise when buying Liquor or Cigarettes, then there is no invasion of privacy "what are you buying" is none of the Governments business, gun ownership comes from a "right" not a Government privilege

    Parent
    The conservative (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 05:43:11 PM EST
    answers are joke. There are NO existing gun laws except maybe the Brady Bill if that is still in effect. Conservatives don't even support background checks.

    Arming teachers is a farce. Security guards are a farce.

    You are hysterical. Any gun laws translate to confiscating weapons? Straight out of the GOP propaganda machine is what you are spouting. The truth of the matter is you are what they consider a "rube". This is all about money. The NRA represents the gun makers and they could care less about your rights. You're just a "rube" they can fleece on their way to making money. The truth is if they don't sell guns, they don't make money. At one point in time the NRA actually supported gun control laws. So was the NRA then trying to take all your guns away.

    Judging by your reaction to what happened in Boston, you are easily scared and then they can get you to do whatever they want you to do.

    Parent

    I have one problem (5.00 / 2) (#149)
    by NYShooter on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 06:23:02 PM EST
    with an item in your comments, Ga. Actually, it's not just you, but almost everyone making this misnomer that has me bugged. (Other than that, I'm on board with virtually everything you've stated.)

    See you later.............

    Oh! Almost forgot......the irritant. It's the word, "Conservative," or rather, its misuse in using it to describe a trait in people who are anything But Conservative. I know, I know. You, of course know what I'm saying, and it's been used, and misused, so often, and for so long, that it's been adopted permanently in the hearts and minds of the public due to those Svengali republicans.

    It's tactics like that why they beat the crap out of Dems in marketing their programs, whether in, or out, of power. "Conservative." Sounds pretty good......mature, stable, "serious." Heck, I'm "conservative".....and I'll bet you are too. I methodically save a portion of my income, make, and stick to prudent long term plans and goals. I don't like rapid, spastic change (for change's sake) but, rather take a tried and true, evolutionary approach to making major changes. And, I could go on, and on, but you understood my point from the first word probably.

    Conservatism, in its historic sense, is simply an ideology of how to get to a universal goal by taking a mature, stable, and tested approach. True Liberals can easily hold the very same goals as Conservatives, but simply have a different approach of how to reach it.

    How, in the name of everything good in the universe, did we let those duplicitous, pathological, anti-social, enemies of humanity seize, and hold hostage, the grand old term.....Conservative?


    Parent

    NYShooter (1.00 / 3) (#153)
    by P3P3P3P3 on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:13:10 PM EST
    Conservative ideology has to do with being focused on criminal behavior instead of getting Government to take away rights of law abiding citizen

    you should read up on "Conservative"

    the Miami-Dade School system wanted to reduce the amount of AA crime in the school, so, instead of focusing on the Conservative approach: parental responsibility, ethics, discipline and police, they chose to have the Miami-Dade School Police Department falsify the statistical reports by hiding it in the educational record and psychological Baker act, where both the educational and medical records are outside the crime record and not able to be viewed by the public

    this non-conservative approach brought down the statistics, but did not to bring down the crime

    unfortunately when one enables and accommodates criminal behavior, it tends to encourage and increase it

    Parent

    Your comment (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by CoralGables on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:31:33 PM EST
    tells me you spend far too much time fantasizing about George Zimmerman being a hero

    Parent
    A ridiculous backdoor ... (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by Yman on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 08:51:35 PM EST
    ... attack on Trayvon Martin which is completely off topic.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#151)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 07:20:59 PM EST
    Shooter I understand what you are saying but conservative is becoming as far as politics a big negative. When you think of conservative who do you think of: George W. Bush, Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, the house or representatives which only 9% of the country approves of.

    Parent
    I think the chances of the suspect (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Anne on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:25:48 PM EST
    getting the kind of due process he's entitled to are somewhere south of slim; I don't even have the first idea how he gets a fair trial.

    Innocent until proven guilty?  I don't think the media do that one anymore.

    Wonder if there will be anyone on the Sunday shows who will stand up for a fair trial, for innocent-until-proven-guilty?  I'm guessing the only thing missing will be the torches and pitchforks.

    Mirandized after 48 hour of questioning... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:44:05 PM EST
    ... Somehow I don't think that's what the Justices had in mind when they forgave a few focused questions asked in the heat of the moment in a very limited situation.

    First they came for Miranda, but I was not accused, so I did nothing...

    The government does not intend (4.40 / 5) (#12)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:10:15 AM EST
    for anything he may say during that initial period to be admissible in court.  That's make believe.  (Apparently, Emily Bazelon does not agree.)  The real intent is to try to obtain information for "national security intelligence" purposes.  Miranda warnings are not a right, per se, but merely a prerequisite for the admissibility in court of any resulting statements. If the agents and prosecutors are confident they already have more than enough evidence to prove their (capital) case, they won't care a bit whether his statements are admissible under court rules.

    Parent
    For that reason I think the most important (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 08:21:38 AM EST
    thing is that he is allowed immediate access to an attorney. He may be in no condition to talk to anyone, either police or his own lawyer, but someone has to be making sure his rights are being protected..

    Parent
    Would love to get your take on this: (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:02:03 AM EST
    First, the Obama administration has already rolled back Miranda rights for terrorism suspects captured on US soil. It did so two years ago with almost no controversy or even notice, including from many of those who so vocally condemned Graham's Miranda tweets yesterday. In May, 2010, the New York Times' Charlie Savage - under the headline "Holder Backs a Miranda Limit for Terror Suspects" - reported that "the Obama administration said Sunday it would seek a law allowing investigators to interrogate terrorism suspects without informing them of their rights." Instead of going to Congress, the Obama DOJ, in March 2011, simply adopted their own rules that vested themselves with this power, as reported back then by Salon's Justin Elliott ("Obama rolls back Miranda rights"), the Wall Street Journal ("Rights Are Curtailed for Terror Suspects"), the New York Times ("Delayed Miranda Warning Ordered for Terror Suspects"), and myself ("Miranda is Obama's latest victim").

    [snip]

    As controversial as this exception [the one decided in Quarles v. New York] was from the start (and as hated as it was among traditional, actual liberals), it was at least narrowly confined. But the Obama DOJ in 2011 wildly expanded this exception for terrorism suspects. The Obama DOJ's Memorandum (issued in secret, of course, but then leaked) cited what it called "the magnitude and complexity of the threat often posed by terrorist organizations" in order to claim "a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case". It expressly went beyond the "public safety" exception established by the Supreme Court to arrogate unto itself the power to question suspects about other matters without reading them their rights (emphasis added):

       "There may be exceptional cases in which, although all relevant public safety questions have been asked, agents nonetheless conclude that continued unwarned interrogation is necessary to collect valuable and timely intelligence not related to any immediate threat, and that the government's interest in obtaining this intelligence outweighs the disadvantages of proceeding with unwarned interrogation."

    That is what Graham advocated regarding Miranda: that Tsarnaev be interrogated about intelligence matters without Mirandizing him, and that's exactly what Obama DOJ policy - two years ago - already approved. Worse, as Bazelon noted: "Who gets to make this determination? The FBI, in consultation with DoJ, if possible. In other words, the police and the prosecutors, with no one to check their power." At the time, the ACLU made clear how menacing was the Obama DOJ's attempted roll-back of Miranda rights for terror suspects.

    Glenn Greenwald, of course.

    Parent

    My take would be an interweaving (none / 0) (#82)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:49:38 PM EST
    of all the comments I have made on this thread in the last day, Anne.  I would have to write an entire op-ed or blog post. I don't have it in me at the moment; sorry.

    Parent
    Best Comment in the Thread (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Michael Masinter on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:31:32 AM EST
    Peter G could not have said it better, complete with a link to the opinions that make up the holdings in Chavez v. Martinez.  Miranda is an exclusionary rule that protects against the use of potentially coerced testimony in any criminal case; it is not an independent constitutional right violated by questioning without notification of the right to counsel. The fifth amendment prohibits questioning someone through coercive means that shock the conscience of the court (e.g. torture), but it does not prohibit questioning him without Miranda warnings.

    Parent
    Just to clarify, about the Fifth Amendment (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    There are two clauses at issue.  Michael's reference to "shocking the conscience" and torture, etc., refers to one category of conduct that is unconstitutional for the federal government to engage in, under the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause (and for the states to engage in, under the Fourteenth Amendment's identically-worded clause).  The Due Process Clause applies to all government action affecting a person's "life, liberty, or property," including police interrogation, and is not limited to criminal investigations; it also constrains what the governnment can lawfully do under a "national security" rationale, for example. In my comment #68 below, I discuss the separate, and more powerful, protection against compulsion of statements that the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause affords in criminal cases.

    Parent
    Peter G and Michael M (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:04:31 AM EST
    Thanks for concise and clear (i.e., understandable to this non-lawyer) clarification on the Miranda ruling and subsequent rulings.  I now know to refer to "warnings," not "rights" re Miranda and already have shared this on another blog of educators, who also -- like me -- appreciate this and can carry it into our classes to better educate our students.  Some of whom will go on to be educators, too, so you have "passed it forward" for years to come.  

    This is one of the reasons for checking in with TL, helpful to those of us who may cope with questions of law and took only a couple of law classes, and decades ago. . . .

    Parent

    "government does not intend" (2.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Andreas on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:29:07 PM EST
    Your claim that the government does not intend to violate the law is not substantiated. The known activities of the Obama administration prove that it systematically and delibarately violates fundamental laws on a daily basis.

    Parent
    Where did I say that the government (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:49:17 PM EST
    does not intend to violate the law?  I never said that. I explained the theory under which they may believe that a period of interrogation, not exceeding 48 hours, for national security intelligence-gathering purposes is not unconstitutional. I didn't even say I agreed with their legal analysis in support of that view.  Please read more carefully what I said; I try pretty hard not to say anything I don't mean, and not to imply anything I don't say. I have my own opinions about official lawbreaking, and will not hesitate to express them when I choose to, but I didn't do that in the comment you are responding to, Andreas. I was only trying to decode, for TL readers who might be interested, the legal thinking that I suspect lies behind the government's current actions vis à vis this suspect.

    Parent
    "legal thinking" (none / 0) (#77)
    by Andreas on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:12:13 PM EST
    I was only trying to decode, ..., the legal thinking that I suspect lies behind the government's current actions vis à vis this suspect.

    I do not agree that there necessarily is any  "legal thinking" behind this which deserve that name.

    Parent

    Within the notion of "legal thinking" (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:31:43 PM EST
    I include the assessment that government lawyers make of the consequences that will or will not ensue (to themselves, their colleagues, and the "success" of their cases) if official action is determined later by a court -- or judged by popular opinion -- to be illegal.  Again, I did not and do not assume that their objective is always to act lawfully (by reference to what you or I would believe the law to be). Sometimes it is just to construct a semi-plausible cover story, masquerading as law (cf. John Yoo, or the authors of the "public safety exception" theory for extended pre-Miranda interrogation of suspects arrested on terrorism-related criminal charges).

    Parent
    I gave the wrong link for the case (none / 0) (#127)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:31:06 PM EST
    which I think explains the government's 48-hour theory.  It is not the 1975 case I linked at comment #74 above, but rather this one, from 1991.

    Parent
    More Than We Know (none / 0) (#15)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:53:26 AM EST
    If the agents and prosecutors are confident they already have more than enough evidence to prove their (capital) case  . . .

    We don't know if this is true.


    Parent

    In general, (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Zorba on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:52:38 AM EST
    that is why people use the word "if," which is exactly what Peter did.  He did not say that the agents and prosecutors are confident.  He said "if" they are.  

    Parent
    I'm a little confused by what I am reading (none / 0) (#70)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev has been captured and will face trial. But according to Department of Justice officials, he has not been read his Miranda rights -- to remain silent and to secure legal counsel -- because, as U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz explained, there's a "public-safety exemption in cases of national security and potential charges involving acts of terrorism."

    That means certain statements Tsarnaev makes to interrogators prior to being advised of his Miranda rights will nonetheless be admissible in court. link

    Could you clarify this for me? Per the above certain statements he may make would be admissible in court even without him being read his rights.

    Parent

    Don't believe everthing US Attorney Carmen Ortiz (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:52:14 PM EST
    says, nor should you trust her legal analysis, would be my suggestion.  Didn't we learn that a few weeks ago, in reference to the Aaron Swartz case?  I stand by what I wrote.  Ortiz is pushing the government's agenda to expand radically the narrow scope of the "public safety exception" to the Miranda rule.  To my knowledge, that argument has not received a very favorable response from courts.

    Parent
    Thanks (none / 0) (#106)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:00:59 PM EST
    Always appreciate your input.

    Parent
    Haven't said anything about this case (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Dadler on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 08:33:09 AM EST
    But everything disturbs me: the initial bombings obviously, and the mayhem they created; the police and media response of shutting down a major city and creating a climate of fear that was really unprecedented (will this now be the norm when, say, a mass shooter is on the loose?); and the reaction to the latest arrest, cheering and celebratory law enforcement-love.

    Sorry, but I still remember the cops and how they acted when peaceful free Americans tried to petition their government for a redress of grievances a few years back with Occupy. I saw the welts they put on some of those kids here in SF. Not that this means we should never appreciate a good piece of police work. But this didn't seem to represent that. It seemed more police STATE than work. All those cameras will still come in handy the next time unhappy Americans try to protest a little too passionately.

    We are a supremely and incomparably psychologically phucked up nation. Really breathtaking. In the literal sense.

    Does the fact that the terrorists (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:43:26 AM EST
    had additional bombs and thus meant to use them meaning anything?? And then we have the car jacking and the police murder.

    Really Dadler sometimes your desire to make things like Occupy and terrorist bombs and the police response equivalent is a bridge too far.

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:52:25 AM EST
    This is phucked up. But not for the reasons you state, but your reasoning. As I said above, it wasn't the media and cops that created the climate of fear. Whether they were basically lone-wolf or broader (seems more lone-wolf now, who knows), this was a terrorist attack, one of the aims of which is to TERRIFY.

    Your worries about an over-zealous police state running rough-shod over our rights are understandable, but misplaced. Where were the welts you speak of? Anybody's head cracked open, anyone illegally arrested? The display of power is dangerous if misused, but I don't see that here. You seem to be worried about something that could have happened or might happen, not something that did. They swarmed the area, cut off his escape, and captured him without harming anyone, including the suspect. He doesn't get away, and no more families have to plan funerals. This was a good day.

    Parent

    and what rough beast, its hour come round at last (none / 0) (#28)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 08:56:07 AM EST
    ... slouches toward Washington to be born?

    (with deepest aplogies to yeats)

    Parent

    Please get Texas correct (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by SuzieTampa on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 08:55:39 AM EST
    The town of West is in north-central Texas. It's not in West Texas. You're missing an important comma. This matters to me because it seems like people don't care enough about the explosion there to get the most basic facts correct.

    The Texas story continues to get (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    coverage every day in my media, far away, and I think that the story of a lockdown of an entire major city of millions, and after horrific deaths and injuries to almost two hundred there from all over the world, was justifiably the focus yesterday.

    The Texas story is of quite a different sort, I think, not so visual for television (which is only one part of media, after all) but more for deeper investigation about, for example, OSHA.  I read that the last federal inspection of the plant was more than a decade ago, as OSHA is so underfunded?  That Texas state regulations are abysmal -- including not only inspections but also zoning that allowed a school, a nursing home, and an apartment building next to the plant?  

    These and related questions cannot be investigated nor get replies from officials in a day, but from the daily coverage that I am reading -- more than a thousand miles away -- they are being asked.  Stay, as we say, tuned.

    Parent

    This is how bad it is... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Angel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:37:45 PM EST
    Given this info, which speaks to deliberate (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by caseyOR on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:56:59 PM EST
    actions on the part of ownership and management, will the owners and managers of this fertilizer plant face criminal charges for the deaths and the injuries and the damage caused by the explosion?

    As we have seen, time after time, lax government oversight and the ridiculous idea of self-policing and self-reporting are spectacularly failed policies. Even in the all to rare cases where the government finds violations and imposes a penalty these penalties are too small and too weak to effect the needed behavioral change.

    If we are serious about protecting people from the actions of these careless and negligent companies criminal penalties are in order. Throw some owners and mangers in prison for the death and destruction that is the result of their bad actions. Fine the hell out of both the individuals and the company. If there are stockholders, wipe them out. Hold people accountable. Only then, IMO, will we see any serious efforts to follow the rules.

    If we learned nothing else from the recent financial disaster, we learned that forgive and move on is a recipe for continued disaster. Clearly, opting for the big stick instead of speaking softly is the way to go.

    Parent

    They well should be charged for criminal (none / 0) (#98)
    by Angel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:15:11 PM EST
    behavior but who knows what will happen?  The state is at fault for not regulating the facility and the facility itself is at fault for not accurately reporting to the federal agencies.  I'm not sure I even understand who was responsible for what at this point, seems like there were a lot of regulations but negligence with regard to inspections and enforcement.  

    Parent
    They should only be charged (none / 0) (#100)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:22:17 PM EST
    for criminal conduct if there is probable cause to believe that their conduct was criminal.  That deaths resulted from their conduct does not establish criminality.  As always, wait and see what the investigation reveals.

    Parent
    That's true. (none / 0) (#107)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:11:23 PM EST
    In all investigations, a good detective or analyst always lets the facts themselves do the talking and lead us to their inevitable and logical conclusion. One runs the serious risk of mistakes by letting bias color and influence the search for truth.

    But that said, one must truly wonder about the official decision making process which led to untold tons of highly combustible ammonium nitrate being so carelessly stored mere yards from both an elementary school and a senior living facility.

    Parent

    I think you have zoning laws to thank; (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:32:00 PM EST
    seems to me with the right kinds of zoning, there wouldn't be a commercial fertilizer facility anywhere near a school, a senior living facility or residential communities.

    Parent
    Texas is a vast state, and almost none of the (none / 0) (#112)
    by Angel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:54:28 PM EST
    rural areas have any kind of zoning at all. Even Houston doesn't have any zoning.  Austin does. County governments have no control over development. So essentially anything goes.  

    Exxon, which is the largest petroleum and petrochemical complex in the United States, is located in Baytown, and the town has essentially built up around it.  Any major event at that plant could make the West, Texas, event look miniscule by comparison.  The plant was was there first and development grew up around it, similar to the fertilizer plant in West.  These towns depend on these places for jobs, and people build their homes and their schools nearby.  Pasadena, LaPorte, and Deer Park (all suburbs of Houston) have petro and other chemical plants, all with communities built up around those facilities.  

    If you only knew how many people in Texas are in danger because of their proximity to these facilities.

    Parent

    Wow. Horrifying. Thanks -- (none / 0) (#89)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:40:40 PM EST
    that's spot on what we need to know.

    Parent
    (to continue; hit send too soon) (none / 0) (#92)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:44:16 PM EST
    as I wondered whether this would be another case (there was one near me) of a company falsifying records required to the feds.  


    Parent
    I'll post more when something mind-boggling (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Angel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:07:37 PM EST
    comes to my attention.  There will be more - much, much more, rest assured.  But honestly, this is just so typical of the GOP control we have in this state.  They don't really care about safety issues. What they do care about though is controlling a woman's uterus and giving everyone the right to own and carry an A-15 assault weapon.  They don't give a rat's a$$ about the people of this state or regulating our industries.  I'm just so sick of it all.

    Parent
    Here is an article about the trade association (none / 0) (#99)
    by Angel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:21:32 PM EST
    You're right (none / 0) (#45)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:14:22 AM EST
    the national media had been focused on the Boston bombings, for obvious reasons. I myself have been so focused on the drama in my own backyard that I haven't given more than a cursory look to this.

    Now that Boston has been removed from the front burner, hopefully some focus can turn to this terrible tragedy in Texas.

    Parent

    I seem to be missing the national security threat (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:11:32 AM EST
    that would be needed to justify withholding Miranda. If they were attempting a blow at the nation they picked really bad targets in a city that has banking, military, and communications centers. Every mass murder is not a national security threat.

    Retract- I see public safety is the standard? (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    Still seems like something that is far too easily stretched.

    Parent
    Just reading up on this (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:23:06 AM EST
    and was thinking the same thing. Whether you agree with the exceptions or not, they're all based on an immediate public threat. There doesn't seem to be any in this case, at least that we know about.

    Of course, there's always the possibility of a related threat, but absent a "24"-like scenario, stretching the public threat exception to cover this situation would seem to render Miranda meaningless.

    Parent

    I can maybe see it if there is a reasonable (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:30:17 AM EST
    belief that they may have planted more bombs with timers.. Seems to me this case is the far bounds of what I think might be justified. But I fear it is right in the middle ground of what many feel is justified.

    Parent
    I think any weapons or bombs ... (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Yman on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:32:43 AM EST
    ... would be a focus of their questions, as well as whether there are any other people who helped them that remain free and pose a potential threat.

    Parent
    Here are some thoughts (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:32:42 AM EST
    The national security question, (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    it seems to me, is whether Chechen opposition to Russian sovereignty over their territory -- which seems to be more a nationalist movement than a religious conflict -- has been transplanted to an American "battlefield."  The Chechen resistance to the Russians has been particularly murderous and indiscriminate, so keeping it out of our cities is a legitimate concern.  Hopefully, the incident in Boston is not an indicator of any larger problem. But that's what I imagine the investigators would want to assess.

    Parent
    Not that it applies here, but... (none / 0) (#5)
    by EL seattle on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 10:44:20 PM EST
    What physical condition does the suspect have to be in for a valid reading of the Miranda rights, anyway?

    For instance, if the cops arrest a guy who's completely intoxicated as he takes a baseball bat to all the cars in his neighborhood, does it matter one way or the other that he's "read his rights" until he's sobered up to the point that he can think straight?

    Or if a suspect has painful injuries that demand immediate hospitalization, can they still be assumeed to be able to understand (or even hear) their rights as they're read to them?

    The suspect's physical condition (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:52:58 AM EST
    is very important for determining whether his/her responses to interrogation are "voluntary" and thus constitutionally obtained. The right in question is the the Fifth Amendment's guarantee that "no person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."  Voluntariness if the Supreme Court's term for a statement that is not "compelled."  It is an all-the-facts-and-circumstances, case-by-case determination, with no pre-determined rules regarding, say, IQ, age, education, language proficiency, mental health, intoxication and medication, physical injuries, length of time being questioned, exhaustion or sleep, access to food and drink, subjective understanding of warnings, racial dynamics, appreciation of rights, access to counsel, access to family or other support, trickery and deceit used by the interrogators, etc. That said, whether the resulting statement winds up useable in court may depend, as much as anything else, on the credulity or bias of the judge ruling on the defendant's later suppression motion.

    Parent
    A history review on older brother Tamerlan's (none / 0) (#6)
    by Peter G on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:15:35 PM EST
    historic (14th Century) namesake.

    What a world. (none / 0) (#8)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:31:30 PM EST
    Despite all the hand wringing I often see here on TL about how society has not "progressed," I read stuff like this and think we have taken at least some small, perhaps, step forward:
    Timur's Descendants

    Despite a death-bed warning from the conqueror, his sons and grandsons immediately began to fight over the throne when he passed away. The most successful Timurid ruler, Timur's grandson Uleg Beg, gained fame as an astronomer and scholar. Uleg was not a good administrator, however, and was murdered by his own son in 1449.

    But, then, I also just remember that we're all human and only a few hundred years emerged from our core nature that was forged through countless thousands upon thousands of brutal years...

    Parent

    Speaking Of Family (none / 0) (#10)
    by nomatter0nevermind on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:51:58 PM EST
    In the Ottoman Empire, it was customary for a new Sultan to murder his brothers.

    Parent
    And in England, Richard Plantagenet, ... (none / 0) (#13)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:34:11 AM EST
    ... Duke of Gloucester and Lord Protector of the Realm, reputedly (and probably) murdered his own 12-year-old nephew, King Edward V, in 1483 to gain the English throne for himself as Richard III -- only to be killed two years later at the Battle of Bosworth Field, which effectively ended the 30-year-long Wars of the Roses between the House of York and the House of Lancaster.

    Removed from the battlefield by loyal soldiers of the House of York, Richard III eventually ended up buried in an unmarked grave not too far away, the site of which eventually became the city council parking lot in Leicester.

    Intrigue and fighting amongst the nobility in 15th and 16th century England certainly rivaled anything in the Ottoman Empire and elsewhere. In the opinion of not just a few historians, it was perhaps even worse, for they argue that the decades' worth of bloodletting weakened the English nobility to the extent that a strong and prosperous urban merchant class began to arise as the power of the landed feudal barony eroded, thus heralding the end of the Middle Ages in the country.

    Of course, the demise of Richard III also brought Henry VII and the Tudors to power. That family's ruthless reign (1485-1603) is a whole bloody saga unto itself.

    Parent

    Myth being disproved, as we speak (none / 0) (#44)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:13:45 AM EST
    by wonderful new research.

    Always consider the source.  (Henry Tudor, the real nasty piece of work.  He desperately wanted to end any talk of restoring the House of York.)

    But myth makes for good movies.

    Parent

    And excellent Shakespeare. (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 11:46:51 AM EST
    Myth? Says who? (none / 0) (#103)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:35:20 PM EST
    It is historical fact that 12-year-old King Edward V and his younger brother Richard were in fact locked away in the Tower of London by their uncle, the Lord Protector of the Realm, and that neither boy was ever seen again. It is also historical fact that their uncle took the crown for himself shortly thereafter.

    King Richard III was hardly some kindly and benign figure, but rather a seriously ambitious and ruthless individual. After King Edward IV died and left his brother to rule as regent for his young son, Richard turned on two former colleagues-in-arms, William Lord Hastings and Anthony Woodville, and had them both arrested for treason and executed without benefit of trial. He then betrayed his brother's memory by posthumously invalidating the late king's marriage to Elizabeth Woodville (Anthony's sister), rendering his nephew a bastard and therefore ineligible to take the throne. None of that is subject to revisionism.

    Given that he conspired and murdered his way to the top, whether or not some historians now insist that Richard III subsequently endeavored to become a benevolent ruler who sympathized with the plight of the common Englishman, is wholly beside the point and irrelevant.

    Suffice to say that Richard III could not have been all THAT well-liked throughout the realm, since he was repeatedly beset by significant rebellion during his two short years on the throne, and was deposed violently and killed by the man who became King Henry VII.

    Richard III neither enjoyed popular support nor held a political mandate. He was viewed by many of his contemporaries as a usurper of the throne. His own schemes and acts against members of his own family effectively delegitimized whatever claim the House of York had upon the English throne, hence his rendezvous with fate at Bosworth Field in 1485.

    For my part, I'd offer that Richard was simply the resultant product of his era and acted in accordance with the inherently unstable times in which he lived. And was in all likelihood, he was at least no less ruthless or worse than any of his Tudor successors, from Henry VII to Elizabeth I.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Haven't you heard? Richard's (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 07:55:17 PM EST
    legacy suddenly became more benign after the discovery of his skeleton under that asphalt parking lot. Astounding really.

    Parent
    Ha. No, Donald hasn't heard (none / 0) (#125)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:07:00 PM EST
    but wasn't his recap well done of the same history that Shakespeare was taught?  (Note to self:  Resist suggesting that they were classmates. . . .)

    Actually, the revisionism began based on other evidence (easily found in a search, for those who really want it) well before the wonderful recent discovery, but that has brought attention to it.

    Parent

    Juan Cole on (none / 0) (#7)
    by Mr Natural on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:25:21 PM EST
    That piece is filled with conjecture (none / 0) (#11)
    by shoephone on Fri Apr 19, 2013 at 11:53:46 PM EST
    It's a mildly interesting analysis, but still, pure conjecture.

    Parent
    That's not unlike what Rachel Maddow ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Donald from Hawaii on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:43:40 AM EST
    ... was saying tonight, as she noted that while the suspects' Chechen heritage is certainly interesting, it may ultimately prove mostly irrelevant in ensuing discussions about possible motives.

    Parent
    FWIW, I occasionally link to Juan Cole's pieces (none / 0) (#23)
    by Mr Natural on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 08:11:29 AM EST
    because he's got a deeper, more informed perspective on the problems devolving from that particular corner of the world than any 10,000 hours of network television, including Rachel Maddow.

    Parent
    I bet Rachel Maddow would also agree that he's far more astute and observant than 90% of the people in broadcast journalism, and that his work bears serious reflection on our part.

    And even if subsequent events eventually overtake his analysis and render it invalid, Juan Cole's occasionally erroneous conclusions are still far more interesting and well-reasoned than the always strident and sometimes correct opinions of the mainstream media's chattering classes.

    Aloha.

    Parent

    Interesting background on family... (none / 0) (#16)
    by unitron on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 04:50:26 AM EST
    ...being on the Russian side of the Chechnya mess, and in the comments a link to this tumblr posting "I've met the Boston Bombers", from a girl (now woman) who got facials from the mother in their home.

    Parent
    WSWS on military-police lockdown of Boston (none / 0) (#18)
    by Andreas on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 06:12:01 AM EST
    The WSWS writes:

    In carrying out this extraordinary and sinister police state exercise, the Obama administration, the military, the police and state and local officials relied on the media to create a climate of fear and anxiety so as to discourage careful consideration by the public of its long-term implications.

    Notwithstanding the horrific character of the crimes involved in the Boston bombings, these implications are very real. The staggering police-military mobilization was clearly the result of years of planning and coordination between various military, intelligence and police agencies that have been relentlessly built up in the decade since the 9/11 attacks. It is now clear that, based purely on their say-so, a major American city can be placed under what would have been called, in a Latin American military dictatorship, a state of siege.

    The events in Boston have lifted the veil on the degree to which, behind an eroding veneer of democracy, American society has been thoroughly militarized.

    Bombing suspect captured after military-police lockdown of Boston
    By Alex Lantier and Kate Randall, 20 April 2013

    It was the media that created the climate of fear? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 07:34:20 AM EST
    Silly me, I thought it was the guys (allegedly) killing people and blowing s*it up. I think the blood-soaked pavement, severed limbs and corpses got the message across. The soothing sounds of a raging firefight didn't hurt either.

    Look, I think the media sucks in a lot of ways, but I have no problem with what they or the 'power' did. Media reported on what the authorities were doing. The authorities, in my opinion, acted within their rights in a limited capacity. They have the right to shut down any and all public transportation. And I should know this, but were the personal lockdowns ordered or just strongly recommended? I thought I saw at least one reporter say that people were not forbidden by law from walking the streets, and haven't heard anything about people being arrested or had guns drawn on them. Nobody was 'ordered' not to open their door.

    Forced searches is a very interesting point, and worth discussing. I don't know what the legal rights are in this particular circumstance, or how that was carried out.

    And the "threat posed by one teenage youth" line? Disgusting

    Parent

    It was strongly recommended (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by CoralGables on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 07:59:44 AM EST
    They were asked to stay inside. No one was being arrested for going out.

    Parent
    Correct and they were asked (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:39:05 AM EST
    for their permission for the police to search.

    Of course if they said no a warrant as well as a lot of attention in the way of more police would have immediately followed.

    Parent

    I had family in the middle of the mess (5.00 / 5) (#46)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:22:09 AM EST
    -- a nephew at Harvard, living in Cambridge five blocks from the suspects' house, and within a mile of the 7/11 robbery, the MIT officer's murder, the Watertown boat site, etc. -- and my brother and sister-in-law (aka the nephew's parents), who landed in Boston the night before and landed in the middle of the mess, the lockdown, etc.

    As family emails flew about this yesterday -- and this is a family that fights against authoritarianism, anywhere and any time -- we all were grateful for all of the steps taken for their safety as residents and as tourists (too often left oblivious to local situations).

    And, it was made clear -- the communications system was really remarkable -- that they could go out and about, if they wished.  

    A friend of mine, for example, wrote that he finally had to take his dog out to do what dogs need to do every few hours or so.  

    The friend looked up to see several Boston police and other security sorts heading toward him.

    They wanted to pet the dog.

    Canine therapy must have been comforting to them, too.

    Parent

    Very nicely said (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by CoralGables on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 10:25:20 AM EST
    And the Occupiers (none / 0) (#40)
    by ExcitableBoy on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 09:56:59 AM EST
    are dirty pinko hippies. Joe Friday told me so :-)

    Here come (none / 0) (#71)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    the agendas.

    I have an agenda. I will express it later.

    Obama is making it a national issue. We have been attacked. Boston will arise "undaunted".  (The people whose lives have been permanently changed or ended, not undaunted so much.)

    I watched a tv station online from Florida. They announced the news. They gave a look that indicated concern. Immediately thereafter, they switched to smiley faces and lighthearted banter leading into the weather. Regional. Boston's problem not ours thank God.

    The Times is already offering a version that suggests that immigrants have divided loyalties. American, and to the "muslim" homelands.

    Grassley, a real tadpole, is talking about immigration. Read: we shouldn't have let these ferrineurs in here in the first place.

    My agenda: To realize the horrors that bombs can inflict on civilians - something we do on an almost daily basis and of which we take no notice.

    Huffpo is now featuring a photo of "suspect 2" which depicts him less as a lad with a white face, to a darker face with muslimy features.

    All of which, i imagine, would add up to absolutely nothing to the people maimed in this nightmare.

    I have an agenda - human rights (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 01:37:36 PM EST
    and civil liberties.  But I try to be intellectually honest, which means that I try to recognize the internal questions and potential contradictions in all beliefs, including my own.  So in response to an issue raised in your comment, Lentinel, here goes:  The Tsarnaev family was admitted to the U.S. as refugees or perhaps as asylees (more or less the same), that is, people who were fleeing a conflict or subject to persecution in their home country for political or religious reasons.  It is not required that an asylee have refrained from, or to disavow belief in, violence in support of the cause that led them to be persecuted, I don't think. There is thus a danger, in pursuing the humanitarian policy of admitting asylum-seekers as a special category under our immigration law, that we will wind up with some number (a small minority, but still, how many does it take?) of folks with a devotion to an ideological agenda that can lead to trouble (with a capital T).

    Parent
    So far, (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:28:15 PM EST
    it seems to me that we are assuming a refugee-asylum-seeker-foreigner-ideology-muslim agenda.

    I don't know of any interviews with either suspects.
    So how can we possibly know anything about their motives?


    Parent

    Once again, where to you see an assumption (none / 0) (#81)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:46:10 PM EST
    in what I wrote?  I identified, in response to your seemingly denying that there was any, a possibly legitimate concern with respect to immigration policy that could be triggering by discussion of the incident in Boston.  I didn't say it was a fact about any particular person.

    Parent
    I didn't (none / 0) (#85)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:32:47 PM EST
    mean to imply any assumption.

    But, on the other hand, bringing immigration policy into it seems to me to be really irrelevant.

    As far as I know, these two were American citizens.

    I would have no way of knowing as of now what their views were shaped by... or whether they had any views whatsoever.

    Some killers just like to kill.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#96)
    by Peter G on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 03:57:03 PM EST
    To you, "it seems to me that we are assuming ..." doesn't "imply any assumption"?  A discussion arising out of a murderous incident involving a naturalized citizen doesn't have anything potentially do to with immigration policy? I give up.

    Parent
    Making (none / 0) (#108)
    by lentinel on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 05:30:55 PM EST
    a conjecture is not the same as making an assumption, imo.

    Sure, potentially, potentially, it could have something to do with immigration policy: If these two had not been admitted to the country...

    But finally, we don't know, at least I don't know what drove these two to do what they did.

    I make no assumptions, and I have nothing to conjecture.

    But I don't dismiss the conjectures or assumptions of others either.
    I just don't feel I can share any of them at this point.

    Parent

    Some background from some in the family (none / 0) (#83)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:58:42 PM EST
    comes from the New Yorker today.

    It doesn't address whether their immigration was  for asylum -- and it may be telling that it doesn't say so, as they had left their homeland, and it doesn't say that they were persecuted in their new home -- but it begins to give us more information.

    Parent

    Also, the aunt who now is a lawyer (none / 0) (#84)
    by Towanda on Sat Apr 20, 2013 at 02:59:26 PM EST
    in Toronto is reported as having emigrated to the U.S. first and then having sponsored the others.

    Parent