Boston Marathon Bombings

[Arragonis]

Shoot on sight vs not - think about the long game, be selfish. Capture the guy and you have an "in" to anyone else who might also be involved but who has not struck yet - the network, the cell. Kill him and you don't, so who knows if there are any other crazies or radicals ready to do the same elsewhere.

I'm sure agents are right now cursing the idea that the guy died last night - so much intelligence no longer available.

[Smurf]

He is IN custody.

[Fat Charlie]

Originally Posted by Smurf

I agree that they shouldn't be killed on sight, if possible. "Swift justice" in my mind means not letting them sit in jail for three years, two years of trial, ten years of appeal, another ten on death row. And since 9/11, terror suspects are treated different, IIRC.

Originally Posted by Smurf

These men need the strongest, swiftest justice this world has ever seen. I get disgusted when the news reports that the police need to read these jagoffs their Miranda rights. If you cause a terror event, whether you are foreign or domestic, you have NO rights.

Swift justice seems to mean street justice to you. Have you ever put a gun to someone's head knowing that he hadn't done anything wrong, but that was the only way you had of communicating with him? If you haven't then stay away from that kind of stuff. It sucks.

On the subject of rights, I am a human being, a citizen and fairly educated. I disagree with the idea that my rights change according to what I may be charged (or simply suspected) with. I dare to propose that the Constitution, being the document that constitutes the government, does not grant the power to exceed the powers it grants (kind of a backwards Catch 22). If you would act for the government, you should act within the framework of the government: try or free everyone in Guantanamo, and try the surviving bomber according to our rules. If we're going to kill him, do you want it to be a bullet in the street, a fall down the stairs at police headquarters, or do you want us as a people to do it according to the rules we've established?

We have rules for killing people. If you want to bypass them, you're really no better than those two guys. Worse, really, because they didn't pretend they were doing it on our behalf.

[NeilBlanchard]

The now-captured bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been taken to Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. He will not hear his Miranda rights - which I think is just dumb. If this becomes a legal issue in the trial, why wouldn't you read them to him?

‘The Hunt Is Over’: 1 Marathon Bombing Suspect Dead, 1 In Custody After Paralyzing Manhunt | WBUR

[Rokeby]

As I understand it, its the difference between "intelligence" and evidence.

Evidence is stuff that will/can be introduced in a trial. Only information gotten after a Miranda warning can be introduced at trial without objection… its being thrown out.

Intelligence is stuff you want to know but will not be introduced in a trial. There is all kinds of stuff that the gov. would like to get in this case that has no bearing on the guilt/innocence of the "alleged" bomber: links to terrorist groups, accomplices, etc. (It is pretty much understood that what with all the evidence independent of what the kid says the gov. has an ironclad case.)

The Miranda warning also includes the right to have a lawyer. Just hearing this usually causes most people to ask for one. (Well, at least it should!) Once the lawyer is involved, getting intelligence gets more difficult.

[Xist]

I have been thinking about a suspect's right to an attorney. I do not think that anyone on here wants to risk an innocent person being condemned and it is conceivable that a person could be guilty, but receive an excessive punishment. Still, I hate the idea of a criminal being free because a lawyer was able to use some trick. That is the game, though, so one should come prepared.

[NeilBlanchard]

I think that on balance, our legal system works well; if it is done right. This is such a high profile case, I think the judge will be on top of things.

The worst thing is the federal prosecutor is the same person that botched the Aaron Swartz case. I hope they have a better approach to this case.

If they do it right, we will learn as much as we can about their motivation and methods and anybody else who was involved. I hope they lock him up for life - if he is found guilty and executed, then he will be a martyr for some. I'd rather he live with his conscience and remorse for the rest of his life. It also costs a lot less to just lock him up for life.

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

Legal systems are often too over-protective for the criminals

Sure it's important to have ways to reduce the risk of incorrectly keeping an innocent jailed, but in this case there's no innocent kept jailed. However, I agree the remaining terrorist should be trialed, and an immediate killing could turn him into a "martyr".

[Smurf]

I feel I must clarify my earlier posts.

By "strongest, swiftest justice", I merely implied that a ridiculously long drawn out trial will only inspire (and inform) others to do similar acts. At no point did I suggest he should be killed. What he knows is very important. And when I said "No Miranda rights", people on here responded like it was blasphemy. Since 9/11, if you commit a terrorist attack, you have no rights. Looking back on the past week, of all the evidence, their actions when they were pursued, etc... is there much doubt of their guilt?

Being as this is The Lounge, I'd also like to present my assumptions (ass-u-me). When I read thru the 19 year old's Twitter account, he was very much a typical American kid. Influenced by money and fame, incredibly intelligent, few angry posts at all. The older brother never seemed to fully embrace American life, always harboring anger over the Chechnya situation he saw as a teen. It doesn't take Picasso to paint the picture that the younger brother was guilty, but the older brother was the 'mastermind'. And now that the older brother is deceased, any lawyer is going to hype that the kid was a pawn. The end fact is that he killed four innocent Americans, attempted to murder hundreds more, and he terrorized millions.

And people are worried about his personal rights?!

[Xist]

Originally Posted by Smurf

And people are worried about his personal rights?!

I remember some complaining after Sandy Hook about the media publishing the shooter's name. I honestly wish they would not. It sounded like the bombers had not planned for any of these contingencies and I thought that they did not expect to be caught.

Personally, I believe that they should die an anonymous and ignominious death.