Boston Explosions caused by Muslims

[OkToBeTakei]

I'm not doubting you, but where are you seeing these "USA! USA!" chants?

I spent the late morning/early afternoon in Boston and then visited my cousin who was locked down in Watertown with a newborn, and I've seen nothing of the sort. I've seen relieved people, people who are proud of how the City of Boston handled things, and people who were back to watching the Sox and the Celtics and the Bruins. But no chanting. Any links would be appreciated.

It was on the BBC News at 10 UK. But actually if you just google 'Boston chants USA USA' As I just did to try to find you a link it brings up some interesting articles.

ETA. My search engine is BT Yahoo which is British.

[Jesus Camp Counselor]

As to the Miranda issue, my understanding is that the 48 hours is part of the expanded exception the DOJ is pushing. It hasn't been tested in court that evidence obtained under this broader standard is admissible. The other times it has been invoked seem to be much shorter time periods. The issue is how much is admissible without the warning. You can ask where a gun, bomb, etc. is without the warning because you are concerned about immediate safety. The exception then lets you introduce the gun and statement about its location as evidence even though they came from the un-Mirandized confession. The concern the prosecution would have is that if the scope of questioning gets too broad, you might end up with statements that don't fall under the exception and are inadmissible. The civil liberties/defense concern about broadening the exception is how far will it go? Will it be claimed that every suspect arrested for any crime could have some possible threat in the works and getting that information is more important than the Miranda warning?

(I am a lawyer, though I haven't practiced criminal law. I welcome corrections from anyone who has more experience.)

[OkToBeTakei]

As to the Miranda issue, my understanding is that the 48 hours is part of the expanded exception the DOJ is pushing. It hasn't been tested in court that evidence obtained under this broader standard is admissible. The other times it has been invoked seem to be much shorter time periods. The issue is how much is admissible without the warning. You can ask where a gun, bomb, etc. is without the warning because you are concerned about immediate safety. The exception then lets you introduce the gun and statement about its location as evidence even though they came from the un-Mirandized confession. The concern the prosecution would have is that if the scope of questioning gets too broad, you might end up with statements that don't fall under the exception and are inadmissible. The civil liberties/defense concern about broadening the exception is how far will it go? Will it be claimed that every suspect arrested for any crime could have some possible threat in the works and getting that information is more important than the Miranda warning?

(I am a lawyer, though I haven't practiced criminal law. I welcome corrections from anyone who has more experience.)

The UK circumvents what I think the US miranda right is by this.

The United Kingdom (UK) has had lengthy experience with indefinitely detaining suspected terrorists without trial in Northern Ireland. Under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 (PTA) [1] the Secretary of State for the Home Department (hereinafter, “Home Secretaryâ€) could authorize the detention of a person for up to seven days. The use of these powers was controversial and in response to increasing violence. In 1988, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the detention was a breach of article 5(3) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)[2] unless the detention was judicially authorized.[3] This ruling resulted in the government derogating (exempting itself) from article 5(3) of the ECHR in order to lawfully retain this provision of the PTA.[4] The derogation was automatically renewable, but expired with the expiration of the PTA. The resulting internment of almost 2,000 predominantly Catholic men was stated to lead to greater civil disturbances and a “diminished respect for the rule of law in Northern Ireland.â€[5] It was widely reported that the use of internment was “among the best recruiting tools the IRA [irish Republican Army] ever had.â€[6] It was against this experience and background that the government has had to determine the most effective, least controversial method to address individuals whom the government suspected of being terrorists that was also least likely to succumb to legal challenges.

This issue of how to detain terrorist suspects was tackled during the drafting of the Terrorism Act 2000 (Terrorism Act), [7] which replaced the temporary provisions of the PTA. As part of this process, alternative options to derogation from the ECHR were considered. The Terrorism Act was enacted to modernize anti-terrorism legislation and apply it to the whole of the UK, rather than just Northern Ireland. The Terrorism Act attempted to address all forms of terrorism with an “appropriate and effective range of measures, which are [sufficiently flexible and] proportionate to the reality of the threats that we face and are of practical operational benefit…[and] enable the UK to cooperate more fully in the international fight against terrorism.[8] It was finally decided that individuals could be detained for up to forty-eight hours after arrest without charge, and that the responsibility for extending detention for up to an additional fourteen days should rest with a judicial authority.[9] Critics of the Terrorism Act regarded this provision as providing for “incommunicado detention†and unnecessary, as individuals previously detained under similar provisions were rarely charged with a terrorist offense. Despite these criticisms, the period of detention has been extended by successive acts — from forty-eight hours to seven days by the Terrorism Act 2000; from seven days to fourteen days by the Criminal Justice Act 2003;[10] and, from fourteen days to twenty-eight days by a highly contentious provision in the Terrorism Act 2006.[11]

As much as I do not wish to see the need for this in other countries as a norm, as it is here. I think it will become the case in the US.

ETA. Source http://www.loc.gov/law/help/uk-pre-charge-detention.php

[JenniferJuniper]

It was on the BBC News at 10 UK. But actually if you just google 'Boston chants USA USA' As I just did to try to find you a link it brings up some interesting articles.

ETA. My search engine is BT Yahoo which is British.

I Yahoo'd it. Citi-Field comes up first and quite a bit. It's not in Boston, though; it's in New York.

I'm sure there are such chants at sporting events, but that is not what people are saying here on the streets of Boston. These men are viewed as LOCAL child and innocents killers.

I did see a panel of clowns on CNN saying today saying there was probably an Al-Qaeda connection. Bullshit. This was amateur hour at its worst. Al-Qaeda would probably be ashamed to be associated with such incompetents. CNN is the worst of the worst, but they are a global presence. Beware media manipulation. They'd love to spin this into an international incident.

[OkToBeTakei]

I Yahoo'd it. Citi-Field comes up first and quite a bit. It's not in Boston, though; it's in New York.

I'm sure there are such chants at sporting events, but that is not what people are saying here on the streets of Boston. These men are viewed as LOCAL child and innocents killers.

I did see a panel of clowns on CNN saying today saying there was probably an Al-Qaeda connection. Bullshit. This was amateur hour at its worst. Al-Qaeda would probably be ashamed to be associated with such incompetents. CNN is the worst of the worst, but they are a global presence. Beware media manipulation. They'd love to spin this into an international incident.

I absolutely 100 % agree Jennifer. But bear in mind being European this is what is presented to the rest of the world who care not or have no knowledge of where or which city. It is the country they see not your city, not your view. :(

[JenniferJuniper]

As to the Miranda issue, my understanding is that the 48 hours is part of the expanded exception the DOJ is pushing. It hasn't been tested in court that evidence obtained under this broader standard is admissible. The other times it has been invoked seem to be much shorter time periods. The issue is how much is admissible without the warning. You can ask where a gun, bomb, etc. is without the warning because you are concerned about immediate safety. The exception then lets you introduce the gun and statement about its location as evidence even though they came from the un-Mirandized confession. The concern the prosecution would have is that if the scope of questioning gets too broad, you might end up with statements that don't fall under the exception and are inadmissible. The civil liberties/defense concern about broadening the exception is how far will it go? Will it be claimed that every suspect arrested for any crime could have some possible threat in the works and getting that information is more important than the Miranda warning?

(I am a lawyer, though I haven't practiced criminal law. I welcome corrections from anyone who has more experience.)

In this case, they really are only concerned with public safety. Big brother was strapped with bombs and they were headed somewhere. Are there other unexploded bombs out there? Where? Any other people involved? Who? No Miranda warning = very questionable (if any) admissibility, so I'd say on its face the exception is of little or no use for a conviction down the road here. And given the overwhelming eyewitness and photographic evidence, the case against this young man is likely going to be very straightforward, so they probably don't need or want much else from him.

[JenniferJuniper]

I absolutely 100 % agree Jennifer. But bear in mind being European this is what is presented to the rest of the world who care not or have no knowledge of where or which city. It is the country they see not your city, not your view. :(

Agree. Hence my comment about being wary of media manipulation.

[Jesus Camp Counselor]

OKTBT, unfortunately, Guantanamo would have examples well outside those limits. I had heard some justification for the broader Miranda exception was to prove that terrorists can be tried within the existing civilian system without resorting to enemy combatants. (Per Saint Rachel Maddow last night.)

I think the problem could be if they don't anticipate the scope going beyond unexploded bombs, etc., but he mentions something that is way outside that. It might be something they didn't know about and would want to bring up at trial. What if it leads to a whole group of people? It's not without it's risks to the prosecution to go that route. In the meantime, there is the special interrogation team that's been brought in for the interrogation. That makes me feel rather uneasy. It also seems to be a concern of the federal defender's office:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... 23796.html

[OkToBeTakei]

Agree. Hence my comment about being wary of media manipulation.

Not really. Media CAN manipulate. Most European news agencies are ok-ish. BBC is boring in it's present all sides. Manipulation would be if there was no chanting at all and it was 'fabricated.' It does not present a good view on the situation. It is not at all a reflection on how your city has dealt with a tragic situation. It is the ignorance of a mob mentality as previously mentioned.

[OkToBeTakei]

OKTBT, unfortunately, Guantanamo would have examples well outside those limits. I had heard some justification for the broader Miranda exception was to prove that terrorists can be tried within the existing civilian system without resorting to enemy combatants. (Per Saint Rachel Maddow last night.)

I think the problem could be if they don't anticipate the scope going beyond unexploded bombs, etc., but he mentions something that is way outside that. It might be something they didn't know about and would want to bring up at trial. What if it leads to a whole group of people? It's not without it's risks to the prosecution to go that route. In the meantime, there is the special interrogation team that's been brought in for the interrogation. That makes me feel rather uneasy. It also seems to be a concern of the federal defender's office:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... 23796.html

A sticky, sticky wicket. As was Guantanamo.

[JenniferJuniper]

OKTBT, unfortunately, Guantanamo would have examples well outside those limits. I had heard some justification for the broader Miranda exception was to prove that terrorists can be tried within the existing civilian system without resorting to enemy combatants. (Per Saint Rachel Maddow last night.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/2 ... 23796.html

Everything about Guantanamo is well outside the limits.

There are various justifications for the exception. My own take is that this particular case is a pretty pure example of a legitimate reason for it, assuming the time period is very limited. Where's the line? What's a gray area vs. a black and white area? All important questions that must be answered.

I suspect they've already talked to him. There have been no updates on his condition and he was well enough to stand when getting out of the boat. I’d be shocked if he doesn’t have counsel by now.

[Jesus Camp Counselor]

A very gray area. Evil criminal law professors might be putting this question on the final exam. It is that time of year.

[JenniferJuniper]

Not really. Media CAN manipulate. Most European news agencies are ok-ish. BBC is boring in it's present all sides. Manipulation would be if there was no chanting at all and it was 'fabricated.' It does not present a good view on the situation. It is not at all a reflection on how your city has dealt with a tragic situation. It is the ignorance of a mob mentality as previously mentioned.

I'm not suggesting it was fabricated. I am saying it was cherry-picked, which nearly as bad. And I do not agree for a moment that any media outlet on this planet "presents all sides".

Would you consider some football yahoos 500 miles from where you are to be representative of your city? Of your country? America is a massive country; you can find examples of absolutely anything without trying too hard.

[GodsKnickers]

I saw it, in the live moments that were captured nearly immediately after. It made me a bit uncomfortable too. I understood the 'Boston! Boston!' chants and shouts, the looks of relief. That made perfect sense to me, after the day people had, and what went on in that 24 hours. The USA USA chants I didn't quite get. But people will do what people do and I figure it was all just the adrenaline and rush of relief and all that - and the USA USA stuff seemed short lived, of what I saw. Hell, I live thousands of miles away and couldn't believe the sense of relief I had when it was all finally over - I never slept all night that night - it was surreal HERE, and unbelievable and shocking. I can't imagine being right there and living through that. So screw my uncomfortableness (is that even a word, lol).

[Arete]

I saw it on the news and did not think it anything more than some wound up people letting off steam. Frankly, I have seen videos of far more nationalist displays from European soceer matches.

These bombings were amateur hour at the Opry, but these dupes definitely had an "I have a mad-on at the United States and I'll show them!" mentality, so it is hardly suprising that some other testosterone soaked Y chromosomes chanted "USA, USA".

[GodsKnickers]

These bombings were amateur hour at the Opry, but these dupes definitely had an "I have a mad-on at the United States and I'll show them!" mentality...

A really good friend posted this on FB -

"Perhaps what we saw in Boston was Beslan meets Columbine; Sandy Hook meets Dubrovka. Let us hope that those two toxic varieties of modern violence never meet again."

Found that kind of interesting...

[NurseNell]

He was a regular church going Catholic.

He was a redhead, and you know how us redheads are, what with out tempers. :o

[miffy]

He was a redhead, and you know how us redheads are, what with out tempers. :o

Redheads are always hot tempered maniacs!!!!

*My dad was a redhead before he went grey. Probably the most even tempered person i've ever known, he only gets angry at cats (& rightly so)

[OkToBeTakei]

I saw it on the news and did not think it anything more than some wound up people letting off steam. Frankly, I have seen videos of far more nationalist displays from European soceer matches.

These bombings were amateur hour at the Opry, but these dupes definitely had an "I have a mad-on at the United States and I'll show them!" mentality, so it is hardly suprising that some other testosterone soaked Y chromosomes chanted "USA, USA".

I'm thinking partisan chants during a sports match are not unusual world wide. Chanting about the arrest of a criminal slightly different.

[JenniferJuniper]

I'm thinking partisan chants during a sports match are not unusual world wide. Chanting about the arrest of a criminal slightly different.

Kindly clarify that point for us.

In a country consisting of 50 states and over 300 million people, if the BBC - or any news outlet for that matter - opts to show a sports crowd in New York City chanting "USA!" over the apprehension of a public bombing suspect in Boston who has been the center of non-stop media obsession for 3 days, what exactly is your conclusion?

I don't disagree that some Americans are more than a little paranoid over the potential of a large scale terrorist attacks - particularly those in NYC for obvious reasons - but I'm trying to get at your larger point.

As I've tried to explain, the vast majority of Bostonians do not see this as some sort of international event. Most of us are scoffing over the bullshit some of the media is spewing and suspect these are two local losers who became obsessed with their perceived ethnic oppression and acted out, murdering and maiming innocent people. If the media in your locale is presenting some other picture about the broad American reaction, you might want to consider questioning it. Personally, I believe in questioning all news media as for the most part it’s turned into little more than commercial entertainment.

[Sola]

I've just seen it on BBC news. It looked like a large gathering of students.

I agree with OKTBT. To me it seems to be the attitude of America is the Greatest. Possibly a bastardisation of patriotism.

[Vex]

I was waiting for someone to say out loud what's on all fundies' minds. It doesn't matter who is responsible for the Boston Marathon bombing. Every time there is a terrorist attack, fundies will instantly remind people that Muslims are everywhere and this *could* be the result of a Islamist extremist. I think this is a more popular idea than we'd like to admit (that Muslims must be responsible) and people like TTH are just bigoted enough to give voice to our darkest fear.

I totally agree with this. I knew that there would be a link to Islam as soon as I heard of the bombings because I knew that the police would be looking for one and if they looked hard enough they'd find it. It seems that everything is terrorism these days. I feel so bad for law-abiding, normal Muslims. It's not fair that their entire religion be tainted by the acts of the extremists, whose beliefs are about as similar to their own as extreme fundamentalist Christians are to regular Christians. It makes me feel ill. The Muslim people I've met have been nothing but decent.

[miffy]

I totally agree with this. I knew that there would be a link to Islam as soon as I heard of the bombings because I knew that the police would be looking for one and if they looked hard enough they'd find it. It seems that everything is terrorism these days. I feel so bad for law-abiding, normal Muslims. It's not fair that their entire religion be tainted by the acts of the extremists, whose beliefs are about as similar to their own as extreme fundamentalist Christians are to regular Christians. It makes me feel ill. The Muslim people I've met have been nothing but decent.

Yesterday I was shopping the the Melbourne CBD. There were people handing out brochures about Islam, not trying to sell it or anything. However there was an evangelical christian with a microphone turned up loudly bleating about 'being saved'. I can tell you who was a lot more annoying & impinging on people.

[Arete]

I'm thinking partisan chants during a sports match are not unusual world wide. Chanting about the arrest of a criminal slightly different.

These criminals were motivated by the principal that random Americans at a sporting event deserve to be blown up. Chanting to let off some steam by some yahoos may be tacky and cringeworthy, but hardly an eye for an eye.

[lizziesmom]

As to the Miranda issue, my understanding is that the 48 hours is part of the expanded exception the DOJ is pushing. It hasn't been tested in court that evidence obtained under this broader standard is admissible. The other times it has been invoked seem to be much shorter time periods. The issue is how much is admissible without the warning. You can ask where a gun, bomb, etc. is without the warning because you are concerned about immediate safety. The exception then lets you introduce the gun and statement about its location as evidence even though they came from the un-Mirandized confession. The concern the prosecution would have is that if the scope of questioning gets too broad, you might end up with statements that don't fall under the exception and are inadmissible. The civil liberties/defense concern about broadening the exception is how far will it go? Will it be claimed that every suspect arrested for any crime could have some possible threat in the works and getting that information is more important than the Miranda warning?

(I am a lawyer, though I haven't practiced criminal law. I welcome corrections from anyone who has more experience.)

I wonder how this 48 hour rule is going to be interpreted in this case. From what is being reported, the suspect isn't able to talk. If he can't communicate until after 48 hours will the clock reset or will he have to be Mirandized under existing law?