Boston marathon bombing

[Scarabin]

In comparing London and Boston's reactions to terrorism, we should bear in mind that in London the terrorists were already dead, and the security forces killed an innocent bystander. Consider what might have resulted if the Boston firefights had occurred in crowded streets.

[cherdano]

The argument comparing Boston and London is just ridiculous. In fact, we know pretty exactly how the Boston security forces would have reacted in a comparable situation - based on how they reacted on Monday, on Tuesday, on Wednesday and on Thursday.

 

(That doesn't mean you can't make the case asking everyone to remain at home was an overreaction. Wouldn't it have been enough to shut down Watertown? I don't know.)

[billw55]

Shutting down public transit and Amtrak would make it harder for the perpetrators to escape the area before they were identified.

As it turns out, they were not making any effort to escape until they were identified. This baffled me: they had almost three days, they could have been anywhere in the world, but there they sat still in Boston.

[Scarabin]

My point is that imo it's better to inconvenience people by closing down a city than to risk killing innocent bystanders.

[PassedOut]

As it turns out, they were not making any effort to escape until they were identified. This baffled me: they had almost three days, they could have been anywhere in the world, but there they sat still in Boston.

As Boston reeled, younger bombing suspect partied

 

A student at the school told The Boston Globe that she saw Tsarnaev at a party Wednesday night that was attended by some of his friends from intramural soccer.

 

"He was just relaxed," she said, asking the paper not to print her name.

Don't know what the older brother was doing...

[kenberg]

As it turns out, they were not making any effort to escape until they were identified. This baffled me: they had almost three days, they could have been anywhere in the world, but there they sat still in Boston.

 

I think others have observed that if they had any brains they wouldn't be doing what they were doing in the first place. These guys obviously left reality behind a long time ago.

 

I am no expert on psychology but I am fairly serious about the above. I imagine most of us have known cases where someone gets so wrapped up in something that he just don't think straight about what happens next. Or he doesn't care. Or something like that.

 

I hope that it is clear I in no way advocate any sort of sympathy for them. I don't. But their actions, from the beginning, were not only cruel and immoral they also were brain dead stupid.

[billw55]

Yes Ken, perhaps they are just a few cards short of a deck.

 

I also consider the possibility that they were involved in an organization, and that their handlers told them to stay put if they were able the leave the scene unhindered.

 

It seems likely that the surviving bomber is being questioned on this possibility. "Questioned" being a wide ranging term in this context.

[barmar]

They didn't even make an attempt to escape when they were identified. The FBI published crude pictures of the suspects Thursday afternoon, although we didn't yet know their names. That night, they caused a disturbance at MIT, which resulted in the shooting of the MIT Campus Police officer followed by the car chase, firefight, and manhunt. By that time the authorities seemed to know who they were.

[billw55]

They didn't even make an attempt to escape when they were identified. The FBI published crude pictures of the suspects Thursday afternoon, although we didn't yet know their names. That night, they caused a disturbance at MIT, which resulted in the shooting of the MIT Campus Police officer followed by the car chase, firefight, and manhunt. By that time the authorities seemed to know who they were.

I had assumed they panicked when their pictures were published, but I guess that is not certain.

[kenberg]

For example, at least so I understand, they hijacked a Mercedes, had the driver withdraw cash from an ATM, then let him go. He called the police and identified the car that they were driving (his). Now I am really glad that they let him go but by this time they had quite a bit of death on their hands. I suppose they could kill anonymous people in the bombing, and an authority figure like a cop close up, but maybe they had trouble shooting a guy close up that they had spoken with. Or something. It's really pretty hopeless trying to understand their actions. I could not, simply could not, do what they did and neither could most other people. So I conclude that somehow they are seriously effed up, if you will excuse the psychiatric technical jargon.

 

Going back to Springsteen's Nebraska:

 

You want to know why, I did what I did

Sir I guess there's just a meaness in this world.

 

Hardly satisfying but there may not be anything better. Their uncle describes them as a couple of losers. Also hardly a description that is up to the task, but what else?

[1eyedjack]

OK, I'm curious. What is the definition of a "weapon of mass destruction"? A nuke? Yup I guess that would fit the bill. Bio weapon? Yup, genie-out-of-the-bottle type microbe that is out of control when unleashed, I would have sympathy with including that. Scud missile? Hmm, beginning to stretch it a bit there in my view. Pressure-cooker bomb? Oh, come on! An automatic assault rifle would have the capacity to do more harm, and I'm betting that there is at least one in every Boston street.

 

Ah, well, I guess that the US administration can at long last say that they have found one.

[kenberg]

I'm not an expert on definitions but I think mass and massive are very different words. The antonym of massive is small but the antonym of mass is, I think, individual. The bombs were not focused on any specific individuals but rather intended to kill as many random people as possible. So mass destruction, as oppesed to individual destruction, might be correct. But of course it's being used as a legal term so logic does not really apply.

 

 

Think of a serial killer. Every Friday night some guy kills a woman walking home from a bus stop. If he is not caught, he will go on and kill 20 or maybe 30. If he is caught after 3 killings, he is still a serial killer. I think mass destruction might very well go the same way. It's not whether or not he successfully kills a massive number of people, it's whether he intends to kill one, two or more specific people or whether he just intends to kill as many as possible and does not much care who they are.

 

Anyway, it would be ghoulish to set a quota that must be surpassed before it can be considered a mass killing.

[mycroft]

Ken @ Popehat has gone through the U.S. Legal code on exactly "What is the definition of 'WMD'?" (point 4) as well as other legal issues.

[kenberg]

Thanks for this resource, I am impressed with the author's fortitude.

 

Reading that over, I am really glad that I studied to be a mathematician rather than a lawyer. They make more money but they have to read that stuff? And write it?

 

Anyway, I would never have thought of a pipe bomb as a wmd but, upon reflection, I can see how the number of people killed should not really be the issue. I think that is what is part of what is being said. And then of course there is interstate commerce. I think all federal laws are required to mention interstate commerce at least once. It's in the Constitution or something.

[ArtK78]

Thanks for this resource, I am impressed with the author's fortitude.

 

Reading that over, I am really glad that I studied to be a mathematician rather than a lawyer. They make more money but they have to read that stuff? And write it?

 

Anyway, I would never have thought of a pipe bomb as a wmd but, upon reflection, I can see how the number of people killed should not really be the issue. I think that is what is part of what is being said. And then of course there is interstate commerce. I think all federal laws are required to mention interstate commerce at least once. It's in the Constitution or something.

Yes, there has to be interstate commerce involved. Otherwise, the federal government would have no authority to act ("jurisdiction"). Without the crime somehow impacting interstate commerce, it would be a crime in Massachusetts, but the federal government would have no jurisdiction, and it would not be a federal crime.

[kenberg]

Yes, I know the general argument. In 1800 there were many things within a state that had nothing to do with other states. In the 21st century more or less everything has something to do with interstate commerce. A jay walker in Chicago is crossing the street to buy the New York Times. There you go, interstate commerce. Ok, maybe not, but close.

 

We all have things that just bug the hell out of us, and for me it's having to explain that the Boston Marathon involves interstate commerce so that federal law applies. Or maybe that's not the way interstate commerce gets into it, I did not really have the patience to fully digest the legal argument cited above.

[1eyedjack]

Ken @ Popehat has gone through the U.S. Legal code on exactly "What is the definition of 'WMD'?" (point 4) as well as other legal issues.

wow. was impressed with his erudition until i read one sentence expressing personal judgement that seemed out of place:

However, as an American, I live in confidence that the government would never exaggerate the existence of WMDs.

whether you possess an incendiary device containing more than 1/4 ounce of explosives is a question of fact that does not lend itself to exaggeration. still, am surprised that they could not find such a device in Iraq after toppling Saddam

[mycroft]

I *think* that's sarcasm - read the previous sentence if you don't agree with me.

[1eyedjack]

I *think* that's sarcasm - read the previous sentence if you don't agree with me.

Certainly makes more sense. Missed it.

[barmar]

is that a post-Iraq invasion clause? Because by that definition, Saddam Hussein clearly DID have WMDs. But if that definition of WMD could be used to justify invading a country, we could probably invade almost any country bigger than Monaco.

[onoway]

is that a post-Iraq invasion clause? Because by that definition, Saddam Hussein clearly DID have WMDs. But if that definition of WMD could be used to justify invading a country, we could probably invade almost any country bigger than Monaco.

They don't have pressure cookers in Monaco?

[1eyedjack]

I know very little about law. My knowledge of international law would fit on the back of a postage stamp. That said, I have reservations about whether the contrived and artificial definition of WMD as applied in US internal criminal code would carry much weight in an international court in confirming the legal justification for cross-border military action.

 

I should like to think that common English usage would be applied when interpreting the definition of the term in such circumstances. In the UK, that is often referred to as how it would be interpreted by the "man on the Clapham omnibus". Another term in common usage is the "Elephant test": You may not be sure how to define it but you recognise it when you see it. As I sit on the Clapham omnibus, when I look at a home made pipe bomb or pressure-cooker bomb or whatever, I do not see a WMD.

 

So by all means let the US judiciary pull the wool over their own eyes and define their terms however ridiculously they see fit for the purposes of prosecuting criminal cases on their own soil, but let us not fall into the trap of assuming that their definitions of terms derived for internal consumption have any relevance in the world at large. As a justification for the invasion of Iraq, a completely different definition of WMD is applied.

[barmar]

I think the main way that WMD rhetoric was used was to try to justify the Iraq invasion to the American public, not any legal body. NATO joined us, and I don't recall the UN sanctioning us, so I don't think we needed to justify it on the international stage.

 

Who knew that a decade later we'd lower the bar for WMD to include something that a couple of kids could throw together in their apartment?

[mike777]

Criminal (civilian)

 

For the purposes of US criminal law concerning terrorism,[29] weapons of mass destruction are defined as:

any "destructive device" defined as any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses[30]

any weapon that is designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals, or their precursors

any weapon involving a biological agent, toxin, or vector

any weapon that is designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life[31]

 

The Federal Bureau of Investigation's definition is similar to that presented above from the terrorism statute:[32]

any "destructive device" as defined in Title 18 USC Section 921: any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas - bomb, grenade, rocket having a propellant charge of more than four ounces, missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more than one-quarter ounce, mine, or device similar to any of the devices described in the preceding clauses

any weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury through the release, dissemination, or impact of toxic or poisonous chemicals or their precursors

any weapon involving a disease organism

any weapon designed to release radiation or radioactivity at a level dangerous to human life

any device or weapon designed or intended to cause death or serious bodily injury by causing a malfunction of or destruction of an aircraft or other vehicle that carries humans or of an aircraft or other vehicle whose malfunction or destruction may cause said aircraft or other vehicle to cause death or serious bodily injury to humans who may be within range of the vector in its course of travel or the travel of its debris.

 

Indictments and convictions for possession and use of WMD such as truck bombs,[33] pipe bombs,[34] shoe bombs,[35] and cactus needles coated with botulin toxin[citation needed] have been obtained under 18 USC 2332a.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapon_of_mass_destruction

[kenberg]

I would hate to see this get bogged down in a semantic debate. Call it a weapon of intermediate destruction if you wish. He has been sought, chased and arrested for killing and maiming people. It's not because of his restraint that he did not kill and maim more, it's just all that he succeeded in doing. He succeeded in killing and maiming enough to warrant whatever punishment the law allows.