Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-23-2013, 10:32 AM   #51
Site Team
 
celegorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,713
Send a message via AIM to celegorm
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

I won't argue that it's a very slippery slope. I think the only time it's ok is when the crime can be defined as nothing else but terrorism (robbery, rape etc cannot also be used to describe the acts).

Now I'm not condoning torture or anything else here, but I do think that their right to a speedy trial and the like are given up on the first bomb going off.
__________________

__________________
"as a fanboy i refuse to admit it and will pull countless things out of my butt to disprove it"

Team Thelegorm! Total Kills: 21 (i iz in uor profile, editsing your sigz)
celegorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 11:18 AM   #52
Omnicide now.
 
foothead's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: My own personal hell
Posts: 10,014
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

Life, I'm going to break your post up to be able to respond to it better. I'm not trying to get into an argument or anything, I just felt it would be worthwhile to explain the "accepted" view of the events since it may help you to understand where everyone else is coming from better.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Life View Post
Well, it is very hard to explain.well, what he has done, been through, and so on. First off, I can always be wrong, and as jimy said, not everything has to be a conspiracy theory, but I think some things should. I mean, when you look at it, they found one guy just a few miles away from the bombing. Now, why in the world would anyone NOT flee away? If anyone here, of all the members here, would you stay? or would you run?
I agree that fleeing immediately would have been the best option. However, fleeing would also raise suspicion. I think these people didn't really understand just how many cameras there are nowadays. They thought they could just act normal when placing the bomb, then go back to their ordinary lives and never be caught. If we try to think using this logic, fleeing would actually have been a mistake because it would cause them to be looked at more thoroughly. That seems to be the general theory that's floating around. It's pretty clear that these two were no criminal masterminds, they were just some idiots who thought they should blow people up for whatever reason.

I will agree that the motive for shooting the cop isn't exactly clear. Based on the large number of weapons they had on them at the time and the fact that they admitted to being the bombers to the carjacking victim, it looks to me like they wanted a confrontation with the police, possibly so they could disrupt things even more and die in a spectacular way. This is just speculation on my part though. I don't think we'll ever know the true reason for it.

Quote:
Then, before the bomb went off, bomb dogs where already there, why would they already have them on scene? Sure, they might have suspected something, but if they did, why did they wait until the bomb went off, They had the dogs there, they could have possibly saved those people.
They used bomb dogs to check for explosives before the marathon. This is pretty standard practice nowadays for such a large, international event. It's been said a number of times that nobody ever tipped off law enforcement about this beforehand, so it was just a routine thing, not trying to identify a known threat.

Quote:
The bomb crew, was already there. And they said they found them (suspects) wearing black hoody and black backpack. I can't even count how many people like that there would be.
What bomb crew? Also, what does their clothing have anything to do with this? They weren't chosen as suspects just because of what they were wearing at the time. The FBI identified the suspects because they were seen placing something where both explosions happened. Also, at least one of the brothers didn't react to the first explosion like everyone around him was. Now that they're being more thoroughly investigated, we're finding out that the Russian government had the FBI investigate the older brother over suspected ties to a terrorist group. They didn't find any evidence at the time, so nothing came of it, but I imagine there was something significant that caused Russia to ask for that in the first place. I'm sure the FBI has a ton more evidence than this, they're just releasing only enough to satisfy most of the people.

Quote:
See?... Why, with all that, would you say not guilty? it's all a bit strange to me.
Why would he plead guilty? There's still a chance (albeit a small one) that he could be found not guilty if given a trial. Also, going through the long legal process could extend his life a couple years if they go for the death penalty. Generally a guilty plea nowadays is something only done in exchange for reduced charges, which I don't think is going to happen here.


During the carjacking, one of them told the victim, "You know the Boston bombing? I did that." source. This doesn't at all sound like someone falsely accused would say.
__________________

foothead is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 12:03 PM   #53
Site Team
 
celegorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 10,713
Send a message via AIM to celegorm
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

Quote:
Originally Posted by Life View Post
See?... Why, with all that, would you say not guilty? it's all a bit strange to me.
What criminal doesn't plead not guilty?
__________________
"as a fanboy i refuse to admit it and will pull countless things out of my butt to disprove it"

Team Thelegorm! Total Kills: 21 (i iz in uor profile, editsing your sigz)
celegorm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2013, 04:03 PM   #54
muz
Golden Master
 
muz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,928
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

Quote:
Originally Posted by celegorm View Post
I won't argue that it's a very slippery slope. I think the only time it's ok is when the crime can be defined as nothing else but terrorism (robbery, rape etc cannot also be used to describe the acts).

Now I'm not condoning torture or anything else here, but I do think that their right to a speedy trial and the like are given up on the first bomb going off.
I think it is a very slippery slope .
During the troubles in northern ireland in the 70's and 80's the British government devised the diplock courts which where a massive departure from normal criminal justice procedure in the UK at the time . They allowed for IRA suspects to be tried without a jury . This was supposed to be the only situation when a defendant could be tried without a jury . Now we have provisions in the criminal justice act 2003 for trials without a jury . And in 2010 you saw the first juryless trial being carried out . the defendants in this case where accused of robbery . Clearly there is a massive difference between terrorism and robbery . What has gone on in this area is called the normalization of the exceptional . Its when you take an exceptional power . It is deemed a success which it almost always will be because it produces desirable results it can then be put into normalized usage and the situations under which you can use said exceptional power become wider and wider .

Stripping away a defendants rights may also act as incitement to others . It was seen in northern Ireland during a series of relentless imprisonments of catholic nationalists(often with little or no evidence ) that there where massive peaks of resistance and violence afterwards .

Another problem with allowing for these exceptional powers when you are dealing with a terrorist is how loosely you can define terrorism . I mean some might say Greenpeace in their endeavors to damage equipment at a nuclear power station are terrorists , I mean they are employing violence for a political agenda . Once you label some members of Greenpeace terrorists however it is easy enough to say the rest are too and then clamp down on their legitimate right to protest . Sure in this case I would agree that the act carried out (boston bomb) was a terrorist act however in other circumstances it may not be as clear to say

Of course this leads me onto my conclusion which would be to say that just like torture there are always cases where withholding a defendants rights is justifiable . And just like torture is currently managed I think the only way to manage declining a defendants rights would be to have a very clear policy that all defendants regardless of how serious or how horrific their crimes should be allowed their rights . But then in certain cases the rights can be withheld . Just like currently some people are/have been tortured . Then when it comes out in the press that this has occurred it is either for the executive/government/judiciary/some body to pursue a case against those who have done this terrible wrong or the government can stay silent on the issue showing by implication that they do not think it was wrong . The only issue with this is that you leave a lot of power in the hands of very few people
__________________
Desktop-AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+-2GB Elixer DDR2 800 250gb+500gb+500gb+120gb
Laptop-Apple Macbook Pro 13" Intel core i5(2.3ghz) 4gb Ram 320gb hard drive
muz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2013, 09:06 AM   #55
MMM
Daemon Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: !!
Posts: 699
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

I think any one who commits a heinous crime against humanity loses all rights.
In my opinion just execute them, the world will be a better place with out them.
The word rehabilitation is joke to these type of people.

I'm not sorry for my harsh remarks on this as I have personally been involved as a close relative was a victim of crime so for the bleeding hearts out there who have not experienced this you will never understand.
MMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 05:28 AM   #56
Site Team
 
root's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 7,999
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM View Post
I think any one who commits a heinous crime against humanity loses all rights.
In my opinion just execute them, the world will be a better place with out them.
The word rehabilitation is joke to these type of people.

I'm not sorry for my harsh remarks on this as I have personally been involved as a close relative was a victim of crime so for the bleeding hearts out there who have not experienced this you will never understand.
who decides what is heinous?
as I said, is it just terrorists, murders, rapist, peadophiles, people who commit targetted crimes against a practicular person or set or class of person.


and how do we decide who commits the crime?

What if a person isn't right in the head when they commit these acts?
(like what if they have mental problems.)
What about people who have very weak minds and are easily lead?
What about people who are acting under the orders of others?



a great example of this is:
pretend I'm a millionaire, and you're out of work, poor, about to loose your house/family, if I say I'll give you enough money that your family (for the next ten generations) will be absolutely taken care of, and can have anything that they want, but all you have to do is take a bomb vest and blow up a crowded public place.

you're desperate, can you really be held accountable for your actions?

Lets change the parameters and assume that you're mentally retarded. now who is really responsible and who should be punished? what should the punishment be?


What if a long time in the future the current war in Iraq is found to be illegal and is therefore classified as a heinous crime, (probably not going to happen) do we execute the politicians who ordered the war? what about all the soldiers who have fought there? they were there illegally committing a crime in this hypothetical scenario, do we round them all up and kill them too?

Then what of the hypothetical executioner in this scenario, after having killed so many people they are bound to be psychologically affected, I believe that inflicting psychological harm on a person is a heinous crime, so do we then round up all the judges etc?
__________________
I didn’t fight my way to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian…
Im sick of people saying 'dont waste paper'. If trees wanted to live, they'd all carry guns.
"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; The inherent vice of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."
root is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 08:10 AM   #57
muz
Golden Master
 
muz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 6,928
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

Quote:
Originally Posted by MMM View Post
I think any one who commits a heinous crime against humanity loses all rights.
In my opinion just execute them, the world will be a better place with out them.
The word rehabilitation is joke to these type of people.

I'm not sorry for my harsh remarks on this as I have personally been involved as a close relative was a victim of crime so for the bleeding hearts out there who have not experienced this you will never understand.
Does the phrase innocent until proven guilty not mean anything to you ?
.I completely agree that when convicted there are a certain class of criminals whom execution may well be appropriate for but that has to have safeguards ,
you need to prove in a courtroom before you execute somebody that they did actually do what you are accusing them of doing . if you are going to be executing people you need to have an extremely secure conviction to avoid the risk of executing an innocent man . the only way you obtain extremely secure convictions is by ensuring the defendants right to a fair trial .

Lets put it this way if a woman accused you of raping her should we just do away with your rights and execute you just on the basis of her allegation , or would you want a trial with the opportunity to test her evidence and offer your defense to the charge ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by root View Post
who decides what is heinous?
as I said, is it just terrorists, murders, rapist, peadophiles, people who commit targetted crimes against a practicular person or set or class of person.


and how do we decide who commits the crime?

What if a person isn't right in the head when they commit these acts?
(like what if they have mental problems.)
What about people who have very weak minds and are easily lead?
What about people who are acting under the orders of others?



a great example of this is:
pretend I'm a millionaire, and you're out of work, poor, about to loose your house/family, if I say I'll give you enough money that your family (for the next ten generations) will be absolutely taken care of, and can have anything that they want, but all you have to do is take a bomb vest and blow up a crowded public place.

you're desperate, can you really be held accountable for your actions?

Lets change the parameters and assume that you're mentally retarded. now who is really responsible and who should be punished? what should the punishment be?
I honestly think him being questioned before he was read his rights was the wrong decision and Id be interested to see if any evidence gathered at this time will be accepted by the federal courts , even if he was read his rights I think any lawyer acting for the defendant would be right to ask if he was even capable of being questioned whilst slipping in and out of consciousness and possibly on a cocktail of strong drugs .

I agree completely with what root is getting at here . One thing I have seen reported in the media is that live suspect could have been brainwashed by his brother . Again this for me would significantly change the punishment if any that would be appropriate in this case

there are also situations of duress , if someone had kidnapped your family and told you the only way you would ever see them again is if you committed a heinous act you would still commit that act knowing full well it was wrong .

Quote:
Originally Posted by root View Post
What if a long time in the future the current war in Iraq is found to be illegal and is therefore classified as a heinous crime, (probably not going to happen) do we execute the politicians who ordered the war? what about all the soldiers who have fought there? they were there illegally committing a crime in this hypothetical scenario, do we round them all up and kill them too?
Even if the war in Iraq was illegal which you could debate all day long I would argue the just war doctrine would still protect the soldiers following legitimate orders . Soldiers would never and in my view should never take responsibility for the decision to go to war they should only be held responsible and the international law on the use of armed force currently only holds them accountable for their conduct during the war i.e. have they followed rules of engagement , have they conducted themselves in away to avoid unnecessary loss of innocent civilian lives .
Do you think soldiers fighting in an unjust war should be held accountable for the war itself ?
__________________
Desktop-AMD Athlon 64 X2 6000+-2GB Elixer DDR2 800 250gb+500gb+500gb+120gb
Laptop-Apple Macbook Pro 13" Intel core i5(2.3ghz) 4gb Ram 320gb hard drive
muz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 08:46 AM   #58
MMM
Daemon Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: !!
Posts: 699
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

I never mentioned not going through proper due process of law.
Premeditated crimes which are proven through justice system, I believe in capital punishment.
If a person is proven beyond doubt insane/mentally impaired then lock them up for good.

For war crimes there is a due process for that and history shows people were executed if found guilty, nothing new there.

PS: For your kidnapping statement "two wrongs do not make a right" no one is above the law.

There is rules for engagement and if a soldier knowingly does the wrong in killing innocent people then yes he is accountable for his actions.
MMM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 08:58 AM   #59
Baseband Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: USA
Posts: 63
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

He was read his rights as soon as he was able to understand them. He was a US citizen and was not deemed an enemy combatant and will stand trial in a civilian court. As far as I am concerned he has all the rights afforded to him via the law.

It doesn't matter one iota of his mental state or for what reason he did what he did. He will be found guilty through evidence and will be executed under the law, which is a damn sight more than the 3 victims had who thought they were there to see a race that day got.

Good riddance to bad rubbish I say, the world just got lighter with one less fanatic on it.
Branjo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2013, 09:22 AM   #60
BSOD
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: MI, USA
Posts: 722
Default Re: Boston Bomb Explosions

Quote:
Originally Posted by foothead View Post
Life, I'm going to break your post up to be able to respond to it better. I'm not trying to get into an argument or anything, I just felt it would be worthwhile to explain the "accepted" view of the events since it may help you to understand where everyone else is coming from better.




I agree that fleeing immediately would have been the best option. However, fleeing would also raise suspicion. I think these people didn't really understand just how many cameras there are nowadays. They thought they could just act normal when placing the bomb, then go back to their ordinary lives and never be caught. If we try to think using this logic, fleeing would actually have been a mistake because it would cause them to be looked at more thoroughly. That seems to be the general theory that's floating around. It's pretty clear that these two were no criminal masterminds, they were just some idiots who thought they should blow people up for whatever reason.

I will agree that the motive for shooting the cop isn't exactly clear. Based on the large number of weapons they had on them at the time and the fact that they admitted to being the bombers to the carjacking victim, it looks to me like they wanted a confrontation with the police, possibly so they could disrupt things even more and die in a spectacular way. This is just speculation on my part though. I don't think we'll ever know the true reason for it.



They used bomb dogs to check for explosives before the marathon. This is pretty standard practice nowadays for such a large, international event. It's been said a number of times that nobody ever tipped off law enforcement about this beforehand, so it was just a routine thing, not trying to identify a known threat.



What bomb crew? Also, what does their clothing have anything to do with this? They weren't chosen as suspects just because of what they were wearing at the time. The FBI identified the suspects because they were seen placing something where both explosions happened. Also, at least one of the brothers didn't react to the first explosion like everyone around him was. Now that they're being more thoroughly investigated, we're finding out that the Russian government had the FBI investigate the older brother over suspected ties to a terrorist group. They didn't find any evidence at the time, so nothing came of it, but I imagine there was something significant that caused Russia to ask for that in the first place. I'm sure the FBI has a ton more evidence than this, they're just releasing only enough to satisfy most of the people.



Why would he plead guilty? There's still a chance (albeit a small one) that he could be found not guilty if given a trial. Also, going through the long legal process could extend his life a couple years if they go for the death penalty. Generally a guilty plea nowadays is something only done in exchange for reduced charges, which I don't think is going to happen here.


During the carjacking, one of them told the victim, "You know the Boston bombing? I did that." source. This doesn't at all sound like someone falsely accused would say.
You can very well be right, It could have been them, they even admitted to it in the court room yesterday. I guess we can't be positive about anything. but anyways, it's good that this is over, and is anyone wondering why all the explosions are happening every where? Texas, in the Carnival dream liner, bosten, explosions everywhere? kind of weird wouldn't you think?
__________________

Life is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:59 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0