Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Mr Pee]

Well there's been so much reckless misinformation from the authorities so far I'll be surprised if the suspect's lawyers don't pursue that route (pronounced to rhyme with "doubt") during his defence.

I don't think any defence tactic will do him much good, considering he has admitted planning to bomb Times Square, been caught on CCTV leaving his rucksack at the scene of the bombings, (which the authorities will be able to link forensically to the device),and was injured in a shoot-out with police, during which explosives were hurled around. And that's just the evidence that's been made public so far.

Still, despite all that, no doubt some people will say the trial won't be fair. :erm:

[amateur51]

I don't think any defence tactic will do him much good, considering he has admitted planning to bomb Times Square, been caught on CCTV leaving his rucksack at the scene of the bombings, (which the authorities will be able to link forensically to the device),and was injured in a shoot-out with police, during which explosives were hurled around. And that's just the evidence that's been made public so far.

Still, despite all that, no doubt the usual loonies will crawl out of the woodwork and say the trial won't be fair. :erm:

I'm getting fed up with your referring to people with whom you don't agree as 'loonies' Mr Pee. It's against house rules and quite unnecessary. By all means think that I'm a loony but don't say so, ok?

The fact you're missing is that the evidence which you cite may have been gained under duress - he was not read his rights before being questioned. This is permissible under certain circumstances in USA apparently but the court will doubtless need to consider that.

You may find this point irrelevant or inconsequential but as I understand it this is the case and it would be appropriate for one of the leading democratic nations to be seen to be following the law, don't you think?

[DavidP]

I don't think any defence tactic will do him much good, considering he has admitted planning to bomb Times Square, been caught on CCTV leaving his rucksack at the scene of the bombings, (which the authorities will be able to link forensically to the device),and was injured in a shoot-out with police, during which explosives were hurled around. And that's just the evidence that's been made public so far.

Still, despite all that, no doubt the usual loonies will crawl out of the woodwork and say the trial won't be fair. :erm:

You should consider withdrawing the inappropriate language. It's people like you who put many of us off contributing to these boards more regularly.

[Mr Pee]

I'm getting fed up with your referring to people with whom you don't agree as 'loonies' Mr Pee. It's against house rules and quite unnecessary. By all means think that I'm a loony but don't say so, ok?

The fact you're missing is that the evidence which you cite may have been gained under duress - he was not read his rights before being questioned. This is permissible under certain circumstances in USA apparently but the court will doubtless need to consider that.

You may find this point irrelevant or inconsequential but as I understand it this is the case and it would be appropriate for one of the leading democratic nations to be seen to be following the law, don't you think?

I wasn't referring to any posters here as loonies, a word which anyway I regard as little more than a light-hearted joke. I apologise if some people think I was aiming the comment at them: although heaven knows I've had to put up with plenty of insulting epithets over the years, many times from yourself. :erm:

I had just come across this site, which is clearly the work of conspiracy theorists and I think this must have put the word into my head:-

http://humansarefree.com/2013/04/the-boston-bombing-is-inside-job.html

Anyway, I will edit the previous post to remove the offending word.

[remdataram]

I don't think any defence tactic will do him much good, considering he has admitted planning to bomb Times Square, been caught on CCTV leaving his rucksack at the scene of the bombings, (which the authorities will be able to link forensically to the device),and was injured in a shoot-out with police, during which explosives were hurled around. And that's just the evidence that's been made public so far.

Still, despite all that, no doubt some people will say the trial won't be fair. :erm:

Sure it will be totally fair. If anything goes wrong there's always Guantanamo Bay - where the world watches true democracy at work.

I'm sure the alleged bomber is guilty, but our 'American friends' can't help turning this whole tragedy into a movie spectacular. 'Gung ho' or what?

[ahinton]

I don't think any defence tactic will do him much good, considering he has admitted planning to bomb Times Square, been caught on CCTV leaving his rucksack at the scene of the bombings, (which the authorities will be able to link forensically to the device),and was injured in a shoot-out with police, during which explosives were hurled around. And that's just the evidence that's been made public so far.

Still, despite all that, no doubt some people will say the trial won't be fair. :erm:

The question of whether or not any part of the trial will be fair obviously cannot and should not be pre-judged, but it is nevertheless important to point out that the fairness or otherwise of the trial will not be - and should not be seen as - proportionate to the gravity of the crimes with which he has been charged and the proposed ones to which he has admitted but with which has hasn't been charged; he deserves justice, as does the public. The fairness of a trial and the nature of the crimes for which the suspect is tried are entirely unrelated, as they should be and be seen to be.

In saying this, I am not, of course, seeking to undermine the gravity of the crimes with which he has been charged.

[Resurrection Man]

..... I feel confident the same members will howl loudly that the trial itself is "unfair" and should be halted.:whistle:

Was it ever thus....was it ever thus....perhaps they could form a pop group....Susie and the Banshees. All that wailing.

[teamsaint]

Was it ever thus....was it ever thus....perhaps they could form a pop group....Susie and the Banshees. All that wailing.

now they WERE a ggreat band...Siouxsie and co.....

The Wailers were Reggae....

(you been down the pub, RM?:smiley:)

[Resurrection Man]

now they WERE a ggreat band...Siouxsie and co.....

The Wailers were Reggae....

(you been down the pub, RM?:smiley:)

What...Reggae Perrin?

The pub? I wish...the dentist more like...extraction :sadface:

[Simon]

Does it matter? He'd already been involved in the bombing of civilians, the death of one police officer and the critical injury of another, and it now transpires that had he not been stopped, he was planning to bomb Times Square.

Ah but you see the POLICE were involved. And they represent AUTHORITY. And authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed.

Therefore, the police must have been in the wrong, because to these people they always are.

These are their rules:

1. If the police detain a criminal, they infringe his rights.
2. If the police kill a criminal, they are murderers.
3. If the police fail to catch a criminal, they are incompetent.

The over-riding rule is that the police cannot win, whatever they do.

Now, this may seem extreme. But if you had read various posts on here over the years, you would have found that it is also accurate, because whatever crime is committed, whatever criminal is involved, somebody pops up with some excuse or some defence of the criminal. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.

[teamsaint]

Ah but you see the POLICE were involved. And they represent AUTHORITY. And authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed.

Therefore, the police must have been in the wrong, because to these people they always are.

These are their rules:

1. If the police detain a criminal, they infringe his rights. They often do
2. If the police kill a criminal, they are murderers. or Manslaughterers.
3. If the police fail to catch a criminal, they are incompetent. or often worse

The over-riding rule is that the police cannot win, whatever they do.

Now, this may seem extreme. But if you had read various posts on here over the years, you would have found that it is also accurate, because whatever crime is committed, whatever criminal is involved, somebody pops up with some excuse or some defence of the criminal. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.

At least you have refrained from any sweeping generalisations which might undermine your argument, Simes!

[amateur51]

At least you have refrained from any sweeping generalisations which might undermine your argument, Simes!

You seem to be owning the Derbyshire landowner these days, teams :ok::laugh:

[Pabmusic]

Ah but you see the POLICE were involved. And they represent AUTHORITY. And authority, to the hard left and to anarchists, is by definition a bad thing and to be opposed.

Therefore, the police must have been in the wrong, because to these people they always are.

These are their rules:

1. If the police detain a criminal, they infringe his rights.
2. If the police kill a criminal, they are murderers.
3. If the police fail to catch a criminal, they are incompetent.

The over-riding rule is that the police cannot win, whatever they do.

Now, this may seem extreme. But if you had read various posts on here over the years, you would have found that it is also accurate, because whatever crime is committed, whatever criminal is involved, somebody pops up with some excuse or some defence of the criminal. The only exception, so far, as far as I remember, has been Jimmy Savile.

I think I agree with you. There is a mindset that does encourage this kind of thinking, just as there is one that assumes everything that 'authority' does is justified by the results (such a mindset usually objects to any criticism at all - "you're either with us or against us"). Both are extremes that cause any discussion to stall.

It is right that those who have the power to limit or remove our freedoms because of 'operational necessity' come under close public scrutiny when they exercise such powers. It is right that any excess is highlighted. It is right that any incompetence is highlighted. It is wholly wrong to assume that we enjoy only those freedoms that the authorities allow us to have. Authority should be accountable at all times.

[MrGongGong]

1. If the police detain a criminal, they infringe his rights.
2. If the police kill a criminal, they are murderers.
3. If the police fail to catch a criminal, they are incompetent.

Sometimes they do
Sometimes they don't
When they kill innocent people and get away with it they are committing murder
and THAT is what undermines the rule of law ..........

but I guess in your "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" scenario you can carry on thinking that they are all in Dock Green :cool:

[amateur51]

I think I agree with you. There is a mindset that does encourage this kind of thinking, just as there is one that assumes everything that 'authority' does is justified by the results (such a mindset usually objects to any criticism at all - "you're either with us or against us"). Both are extremes that cause any discussion to stall.

It is right that those who have the power to limit or remove our freedoms because of 'operational necessity' come under close public scrutiny when they exercise such powers. It is right that any excess is highlighted. It is right that any incompetence is highlighted. It is wholly wrong to assume that we enjoy only those freedoms that the authorities allow us to have. Authority should be accountable at all times.

Beautifully put, Pabs :ela::ok: - Doombar, if that's ok with you :erm: