Okay, I got the basic thrust of that gist.
Reports of explosions at 2013 Boston Marathon
- Thread starter JoeZhang
- Start date
Okay, I got the basic thrust of that gist.
Now this is going to seem strnage but bear with me. I seem to remember some mysterious booms reported late at night over the last year or so. Now most of these are mine bursts, trains coupling on rail-yards, etc.
Now I seem to remember how folks who study sprites and blue jets actually used a computer program that some ufologist concocted, so it shows how even the oddball element may be useful.
I can't help but think some booms across the country might be dry runs of similar two man cells. A plot to bomb trains in Canada was foiled recently, so I cannot help but wonder.
Infrasound arrays would tell the difference between IEDs train cars and mine bursts.
I did say IEDs right, a recent talk radio caller kept calling them IUDs.
Yeah, those are nasty--I took a Dalkon shield right to the face once when...oh never mind
Now I seem to remember how folks who study sprites and blue jets actually used a computer program that some ufologist concocted, so it shows how even the oddball element may be useful.
I can't help but think some booms across the country might be dry runs of similar two man cells. A plot to bomb trains in Canada was foiled recently, so I cannot help but wonder.
Infrasound arrays would tell the difference between IEDs train cars and mine bursts.
I did say IEDs right, a recent talk radio caller kept calling them IUDs.
Yeah, those are nasty--I took a Dalkon shield right to the face once when...oh never mind
I'll tell you where the line is.
A couple of years ago a University of Kentucky football player was arrested for detonating WMD in an apartment complex near me. The local news of course ran with the shocking story, the players name joining a pantheon with Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh. Thankfully the charges were fairly quickly dropped because the WMDs were cleverly constructed out of 2-Liter PET plastic screw-top casings (of the usual variety), Diet Coke, and Mentos.
On the bright side, the new definition completely vindicates our invasion of Iraq. Saddam had stockpiles of Diet Coke and we couldn't control Mento smuggling across his border with Jordan.
Sorry, no scary conspiracy here. We're not talking about a military definition. We're talking about a legal definition. It is simply the way the Federal law happens to be written.
http://swampland.time.com/2013/04/2...ber-is-charged-with-wmd-use/?iid=sl-main-lead
Whoa Nellie
The WMD charge is not some sort of grand scheme as you might suggest or some kind of cover-up. It's not part of any conspiracy either.
As for the above mentioned conspiracy theories I'm guilty as charged, all I can say is that I consider both side's arguments (the governments and the conspiracy peoples) but when I find glaring inconsistencies in the government's version of events or hushing up of certain compromising facts, then I consider the government's version the conspiracy.
But not all people who believe in conspiracy theories, or alternative explanations about the workings of the worlds, are mad or are lonesome people glued to a computer screen with no life. A lot about how the economy, money itself and the government works is not commonly know or has been falsely taught. There's a lot of information out there (from extraterrestrial visitors, the power of the human mind, the optimal currency system, to evolution and more) and you have to cherry pick it and sort out the legitimate from the crazy, the illogical from the reasonable. Which is made all the more harder as you fight off ones cognitive bias in a search for the truth.
You can call me a crazy tin-foil wearing nutter, whatever you will I don't really mind you know, if you want to ban me fine. IDIC and all of that really does exist, and there is a logic and reason for nearly everyone of the woes and problems afflicting this planet, plus an answer out there already (multiple answers for humanities eventual evolution from this prison we've imposed upon ourselves). A fraction of the conspiracy theories out there give you a glimpse to that answer...
I "suggested" nothing. You said "there's something very rotten going on here" and suggested that calling it a WMD was an attempt at convincing people that these were more than IEDs and that they might have had chemical or biological warheads. You were the one implying some concerted effort to fool people by calling it a WMD.
But that's the problem. You're not finding anything glaring. You're trying to connect the dots between a bunch of vaguely formed ideas and exaggerations without a shred of evidence, and then when each one gets shot down you simply move on to something new without skipping a beat.
See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I never called you a name. The worst I said was that your arguments were coming off as foolish. And then you make the completely out of nowhere leap of logic that you're in danger of being banned. WTF, man? We're just having a conversation. You're not going to get banned, for Christ's sake.
Holder called it a WMD in the charge papers instead of an IED in an effort to exaggerate the severity of the crime and invoke certain emotional responses from the media and, ergo, the public. It invokes vile visions of NBC weaponry, as opposed to the simple but effective claymore that it really is. The intent is to ultimately lead to increasing the chances of conviction and resulting in a stiffer sentence. Lawyers do it all the time. It's called puffery, and Holder is the top lawyer of the country right now. I don't think there's any conspiracy going on here other than an over-indulgent use of a thesaurus.
No one is disputing that the bombs caused a great deal of damage, injury, and death. It's just that when you use the term WMD it evokes a certain image based on its traditional usage, and that is of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons that have the potential for wide area destruction and casualties measures in the thousands or more, as opposed to low yield explosives with a relatively minor blast radius.
However, while it all sounds a bit sensationalistic, I don't believe there's any intent to fool anyone, and it wouldn't work for the vast majority of the public who knows what kind of bomb was used anyway thanks to all the media coverage. The only people who might be fooled are those relative few who confuse Chechnya with the Czech Republic.
Also, there's a longstanding legal definition of WMD that is being used in the charge here (and has been used before, such as after the Oklahoma City Bombing with Tim McVeigh) that is separate from the popular usage of the term WMD.
In a criminal charge, it really doesn't matter what the popular definition of WMD is, anymore that it matters what the normal usage of "relevant" or "hearsay" is in the context of a trial.
According to the statute, 18 USC 2332a includes a "destructive device," and using the definition cross-referenced in 18 USC 921 (the firearms statute), that means: "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas -- (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses."
It does not include any device that is not designed or re-designed for use as a weapon.
So, any incendiary device -- including whatever kind of bomb you can make -- is a destructive device under section 921, and is considered a WMD if it has a capability of injuring, maiming, and/or killing a large number of people at detonation. It does not include a car (which isn't designed or re-designed to be a weapon, even if you use it to mow down 30 people), unless you pack it with explosives and detonate it, or a firearm (no matter how many rounds it carries), which is defined separately in the same statute.
According to the statute, 18 USC 2332a includes a "destructive device," and using the definition cross-referenced in 18 USC 921 (the firearms statute), that means: "any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas -- (i) bomb, (ii) grenade, (iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than 4 ounces, (iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than 1/4 ounce, (v) mine, or (vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses."
It does not include any device that is not designed or re-designed for use as a weapon.
So, any incendiary device -- including whatever kind of bomb you can make -- is a destructive device under section 921, and is considered a WMD if it has a capability of injuring, maiming, and/or killing a large number of people at detonation. It does not include a car (which isn't designed or re-designed to be a weapon, even if you use it to mow down 30 people), unless you pack it with explosives and detonate it, or a firearm (no matter how many rounds it carries), which is defined separately in the same statute.
I'm aware of that:
We were talking about the distinction between the legal charge and the popular meaning.
Yes, I get that. And I was responding as well to foxhot and 137th Gebirg regarding that fact.
He detonated two bombs in the middle of a crowd at the Boston Marathon, killing three people and maiming dozens, executed an MIT cop, ran over and killed his brother, wounded another cop, engaged in multiple shootouts with various law enforcement agencies and threw bombs at people. There's no need to exaggerate charges. Nobody's worried about getting a conviction.
Right. But what does matter is the sentence following inevitable conviction. Now that they are going after the death penalty, they need to make sure the language they use is as extreme as possible to ensure the maximum penalty for the obvious crime
Well, I don't like it when we take one already loosely defined term from one sphere and write it even more sloppily into domestic law. WMD used to denote the type of weapons we tried to avoid using in conventional, violent warfare, to distinguish from the usual artillery, napalm, and 2000-lb bombs dropping like rain.
There are many definitions of "genocide", and some of them refer to the targeting killing of a distinct group of people. If we did something similar to our domestic WMD definition, the "distinct group of people" could refer to the two clerks at the Quicky-Mart and "genocide" would join WMD as a nearly useless, throwaway word when used in criminal charges.
There are many definitions of "genocide", and some of them refer to the targeting killing of a distinct group of people. If we did something similar to our domestic WMD definition, the "distinct group of people" could refer to the two clerks at the Quicky-Mart and "genocide" would join WMD as a nearly useless, throwaway word when used in criminal charges.
People are very much jumping the gun. There hasn't even been an indictment yet; who knows what the case will look like or what the charges will be after the grand jury investigation is done. The matter has not been presented to the Attorney General for a decision on whether to seek the death penalty. And anyway, you charge the best case and highest charges you can prove, not the sentence you hope to get. The language of the indictment will track the language of the statute, which is anything but "loosely defined."
He has been charged and the death penalty has already been sought in this case. It has been mentioned over and over now for days on all news services. This fact is not in dispute.
What one person calls jumping the gun, another calls planning ahead. Good lawyers build their careers around playing the long chess game to the last move, particularly in high-profile litigations like this one. If it means opening with a strong hand and they think it can benefit them 20 moves down the line, you can bet they will.
What one person calls jumping the gun, another calls planning ahead. Good lawyers build their careers around playing the long chess game to the last move, particularly in high-profile litigations like this one. If it means opening with a strong hand and they think it can benefit them 20 moves down the line, you can bet they will.
He has not been indicted yet; the government has filed a criminal complaint. You cannot be tried on a criminal complaint for a felony (see: 5th Amendment). A criminal complaint is the government laying out some of the evidence, enough to establish probable cause which allows them to arrest and detain the person (see: 4th Amendment). Within 30 days of the initial appearance before the magistate judge, which happened in the hospital room, the governmen has to present the charges to a grand jury, which, if it agrees that there is probable cause, returns an indictment. THAT is the document governing the subsequent trial, unless it is superseded by another grand jury's indictment adding charges.
So no, he has not been formally charged with the felony; only an indictment can do that.
No, the death penalty has not been sought since: (a) there isn't an indictment yet, see above; (b) the whole process of seeking approval from the AG hasn't concluded yet (if it's even been started), and (c) that is a sentencing issue, and there's been no conviction yet (or indictment, see above). The most that can happen is that the US Attorney, after briefing the issue in a comprehensive document, seeks the AG's permission to file notice to the defendant that the government intends to seek the death penalty in the event of conviction on capital offenses.
Just because it's been mentioned in the news doesn't make it accurate.
And he posted bail this morning, but can't leave Massachusetts. http://www.theonion.com/articles/dzhokar-tsarnaev-posts-bail,32184/
^ 
One of the best things about The Onion articles is the comments from people who take them seriously.
One of the best things about The Onion articles is the comments from people who take them seriously.
Similar threads
