Boston Bombing Suspects - MIT Shooting - Manhunt


Recommended Posts

US, Russia missed chances to intercept Tamerlan Tsarnaev

...

Russian analysts say the affair illustrates a dire need for stepped-up cooperation between US and Russian intelligence services.

"I would not be surprised if these Chechens arrived in the US under some program designed to help Chechen political refugees from 'Russian oppression,'" says Sergei Markov, a former adviser to President Putin.

...

RUSSIANS WARN OF BLOWBACK

Russian officials have been quick to fit the Tsarnaev chapter into the Kremlin's overall, and oft-repeated, narrative that US support for Islamist extremists ? from the mujahedin who fought Soviet forces in Afghanistan in the 1980's through to Chechen separatists fighting Russia, Libyan insurgents who overthrew Muammar Qaddafi, and today's rebels in Syria ? only leads to "blowback" that ultimately damages the US and its interests.

Vladimir Kotlyar, a member of the Russian Foreign Ministry's international law council, told the independent Kommersant FM radio station Saturday that the US needs to make a systematic reappraisal of its policies, in particular its current support for Syrian rebels fighting to overthrow strongman Bashar al-Assad.

"It is known that Chechens ? sources cite different figures, between 600 and 6,000 of them ? are fighting in Syria on the insurgents' side. They are among the most active militants, well trained and comprising the insurgent's 'armed fist'.... It is time the Americans finally drew the conclusion that there are not 'good' and 'bad' terrorists, 'ours' and 'theirs'," he said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe that garbage for a second. Those "experts" are idiots. Chechen rebels are only interested in targeting Russia and no one else. There is no Islamic threat from there.

You are not alone in this erroneous thinking.

Following the massive manhunt that led to the killing of Tamerlan Tsarnaev and the eventual capture of his younger brother Dzhokhar, former mayor of New York Rudolph Giuliani remarked that the US had considered Chechen terror groups an intrinsically Russian problem.

?We don?t have that kind of problem here in the US. If anything the US has expressed a little bit of sympathy for them [Chechens],? Giulani told Bloomberg.

source

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are not alone in this erroneous thinking.

Well, up until now, I've never heard of any of the Chechen rebels care about anything except killing Russians. I certainly don't count the two in Boston as even remotely significant as far as that is concerned. That some are apparently fighting in Syria surprises me and if true, I'd suspect they were more paid mercenaries than believers of a cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Beslan Comes to America

There has been too much sympathy in some circles for Chechen terrorists. After the Beslan Massacre, Time Magazine asked, ?Does Russia Share Blame for Beslan?? The London Times reported that the mastermind of the massacre was ?is in a state of shock over what happened, but blames the Russians.?

Other survivors told how screaming teenage girls were dragged into rooms adjoining the gymnasium where they were being held and raped by their Chechen captors who chillingly made a video film of their appalling exploits. They said children were forced to drink their own urine and eat the petals off the flowers they had brought their teachers after nearly three days without food or water in the stifling hot gym.

This was Beslan.

These are the types of savage monsters who could place a bomb next to an 8-year-old boy.

Beslan has come to America and it should be a wake up call. There should be no more sympathy for Chechen terrorists. Or for that matter any Muslim terrorists.

And we need to stop bringing refugees from Muslim conflicts to America. That goes for Chechens, Afghans, Syrians and all the rest. All we?re doing is importing bloody wars from around the world here.

Events like the Marathon Massacre are inevitable if we keep maintaining an immigration policy that invites the people responsible for atrocities such as Beslan to repeat them in this country.

Sure, but I don't generalise based on lone incidents. Kidnappings happened, but this was about the only one that resulted in the murder of the victims, and reading the details, it's not exactly easy to say that the rebels as a whole, were responsible.

Well, the Mujahideen - Al-Qaeda transition is a perfect example of how the pawns can turn against their king.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what's scary about this case is they're trying to try him as a enemy combatant, or something, which means he hs fewer rights than a normal citizen criminal.

That's scary because where is the line? Could they abuse this and use it to give any criminal less rights or?

This kid maybe be a crazy idiot, but he was still a citizen and i think should be treated as such.

>

1) he is a naturalized citizen, a status which can be revoked for cause and the govt. has one helluva cause.

2) "enemy combatant has a specific meaning under US and international law,

Council on Foreign Relations: Enemy Combatants....

>

An ?enemy combatant? is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): ?Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.?

?Enemy combatant? is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below)

The President has determined that al Qaida members are unlawful combatants because (among other reasons) they are members of a non-state actor terrorist group that does not receive the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. He additionally determined that the Taliban detainees are unlawful combatants because they do not satisfy the criteria for POW status set out in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention. Although the President?s determination on this issue is final, courts have concurred with his determination.

>

So, if his citizenship is revoked, and his actions connection to terrorist groups can be confirmed, he can most definitely be legally defined as an "enemy combatant" and it will meet all international and US standards.

If he can be tied to AQ, even through his brother, he's going to be in a world of hurt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a quote from Beslan Comes to America

And we need to stop bringing refugees from Muslim conflicts to America. That goes for Chechens, Afghans, Syrians and all the rest. All we?re doing is importing bloody wars from around the world here.

Events like the Marathon Massacre are inevitable if we keep maintaining an immigration policy that invites the people responsible for atrocities such as Beslan to repeat them in this country.

So refugees are equal to terrorists now? How many people who escaped their countries because of dictators, of wars, of oppression to live into more civilized and free countries that are integrated and good citizens?

Please, note that I may not be speaking strictly of 2013. I could be speaking of some other times that stretch back all the way to the beginning of the 20th century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, if his citizenship is revoked, and his actions connection to terrorist groups can be confirmed, he can most definitely be legally defined as an "enemy combatant" and it will meet all international and US standards.

If he can be tied to AQ, even through his brother, he's going to be in a world of hurt.

Which was pretty much why I made the assertion a few days ago that he'll end up tossed into Guantanamo Bay and left to rot.

Personally, I think it would be better for the US and the people involved in Boston and the following manhunt, if his citizenship was retained and he received a full trial. Your people need to see justice done properly, not the suspect just vanished out of sight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a quote from Beslan Comes to America

So refugees are equal to terrorists now? How many people who escaped their countries because of dictators, of wars, of oppression to live into more civilized and free countries that are integrated and good citizens?

Please, note that I may not be speaking strictly of 2013. I could be speaking of some other times that stretch back all the way to the beginning of the 20th century.

The U.S doesnt need refugees,refugees need the U.S, the U.S doesnt need their problems or beliefs. If refugees want to come to the U.S then they need to leave thier radical views behind. One of the bombers tweeted that he lived in the U.S for 10 years already, I want out. Thats fine, we do not need you, go have your radical views some where else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm an American, even retired from the military, and I'd like to see Gitmo closed. Move them all to federal prisons, try them all in open court, and if we've done our jobs they stay in prison for a VERY long time.

Gitmo is a stain on the principles our country was founded on - we're suppossed to be the GOOD guys.

We need to demonstrate that we follow those priciples our country was founded on - not just pay them lip service.

Keeping detainees in legal limbo for years on end is something we'd criticize any other country for if they did it - yet we've been doing it for a decade or more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Didn't Obama commit to closing that place down when he was first voted in? Why is it still open?

I believe the way he was going to close it was to simply move it to Illinois.

With "48 detainees were determined to be too dangerous to transfer but not feasible for prosecution" it's not going anywhere, anytime soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Didn't Obama commit to closing that place down when he was first voted in? Why is it still open?

I believe the way he was going to close it was to simply move it to Illinois.

Yup, and it is the American people who want no part of these maniacs to be on US soil, even as SuperMax prisoners. Every time it's brought up the question is "where?", and it's shot down as even the Democrats play the "not in my back yard!" card. Reason? Their constituents, voters of almost all political stripes, would have a world class hissy fit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well then your option is to release them instead of illegally holding them in what isn't even classed as prison on foreign soil.

interesting how differently Americans handle this situations than many other countries.

When we had our mass shooter terrorist who killed almost 8 kids, the nation got together even closer, had rose ceremonies and the message was about love. and instead of achieving what he wanted he got the complete opposite.

During this you had Americans going how awesome this was and that this was how they should react and would react if something happened on their soil again.

fast forward a few years, and this Boston bombing happens, killing 3, and the Americans are in masses crying for revenge and vengeance...

all you're doing with the revenge talk and blocking stuff, is playing to their wishes. creating more hate and fear. Different mentalities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ Didn't Obama commit to closing that place down when he was first voted in? Why is it still open?

Like all politicians, its just another in a long string of promises that couldnt/wouldnt be kept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, and it is the American people who want no part of these maniacs to be on US soil, even as SuperMax prisoners. Every time it's brought up the question is "where?", and it's shot down as even the Democrats play the "not in my back yard!" card. Reason? Their constituents, voters of almost all political stripes, would have a world class hissy fit.

What makes you think they're maniacs?

"If demanding a fair trial makes me a terrorist, then we are all terrorists now, and on that anniversary, we celebrate our own revolt. " - Shaker Aamer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yup, and it is the American people who want no part of these maniacs to be on US soil, even as SuperMax prisoners. Every time it's brought up the question is "where?", and it's shot down as even the Democrats play the "not in my back yard!" card. Reason? Their constituents, voters of almost all political stripes, would have a world class hissy fit.

So those detainees, including the ones that are eligible for release, are just going to be left there to rot forever, just because of a bunch of NIMBY's? I'm surprised the Cubans put up with it in THEIR back yard.

I guess it's true what some say, Americans only pay lip service to their own values of freedom, justice and fairness; and it only applies to their own natural born citizens.

This is why the US has such poor international relations at the moment. The whole "Do as we say, not as we do" mentality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So those detainees, including the ones that are eligible for release, are just going to be left there to rot forever, just because of a bunch of NIMBY's? I'm surprised the Cubans put up with it in THEIR back yard.

>

There is a treaty with Cuba giving us the base at Guantanamo that has s few more decades to run. Until then it's US territory and Cuba has no say over it. Michigan was at one timd considered for their interment, a proposal that lasted just long enough for the state capitol building switchboards to jam - for several days. NEXT....

As to GITMO prisoners, I think most Americans would just as soon see them rot, shot or hanged. Pick one.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to GITMO prisoners, I think most Americans would just as soon see them rot, shot or hanged. Pick one.

Kill people who've not actually been charged with anything? Innocent people.

And there I was thinking the US stood for human rights and the legal process. Woe is me. :)

I'm afraid that ship sailed a long time ago.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kill people who've not actually been charged with anything?

And there I was thinking the US stood for human rights and the legal process. Woe is me. :)

I'm afraid that ship sailed a long time ago.

With the way you and the rest of the world looks at us I couldnt care less about them and frankly I dont care if the rest of the world burns.
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the way you and the rest of the world looks at us I couldnt care less about them and frankly I dont care if the rest of the world burns.

A great contribution there, KingCracker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.