Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[amateur51]

Of course it's hyperbole, and completely wrong.

Isn't hyperbole a legitimate figure of speech that uses exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis or impact?

[MrGongGong]

It really should be possible to tell the difference, .

Of course it's possible to tell the difference at a distance
but if someone is beating you over the head with a big stick it matters little

Sadly, if the police are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us (as sometimes BUT NOT ALWAYS happens in the UK) then the comparison is not really hyperbole

[Richard Barrett]

if the police are not subject to the same laws as the rest of us

As we see for example in the fact that the captured Tsarnaev brother wasn't given his constitutional right to silence, because apparently this doesn't need to apply in the case of terrorists.

I really don't see all this fuss about the mention of Nazi Germany. Comparing two things is not equivalent saying they're the same. If there's a taboo on comparing contemporary Western societies to Nazi Germany, which there seems to be, maybe it's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it. I reckon we should all be keeping a close eye on how governments use the "threat of terrorism" to justify increasingly aggressive policing, surveillance and curtailment of freedoms.

[Bryn]

As we see for example in the fact that the captured Tsarnaev brother wasn't given his constitutional right to silence, because apparently this doesn't need to apply in the case of terrorists.

I really don't see all this fuss about the mention of Nazi Germany. Comparing two things is not equivalent saying they're the same. If there's a taboo on comparing contemporary Western societies to Nazi Germany, which there seems to be, maybe it's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it. I reckon we should all be keeping a close eye on how governments use the "threat of terrorism" to justify increasingly aggressive policing, surveillance and curtailment of freedoms.

Sorry Richard, but my understanding is that though there was some talk in advance that he would not be read his rights, when it came to his initial questioning, he was in fact read them and nodded to indicate that he understood them. He also uttered the one word "No" in response to being asked if he could afford to pay for a lawyer to defend him.

[Richard Barrett]

Sorry Richard, but my understanding is that though there was some talk in advance that he would not be read his rights, when it came to his initial questioning, he was in fact read them and nodded to indicate that he understood them.

Well, that is some good news at least; although the idea that he might not have been read his rights was bad enough in itself.

[amateur51]

As we see for example in the fact that the captured Tsarnaev brother wasn't given his constitutional right to silence, because apparently this doesn't need to apply in the case of terrorists.

I really don't see all this fuss about the mention of Nazi Germany. Comparing two things is not equivalent saying they're the same. If there's a taboo on comparing contemporary Western societies to Nazi Germany, which there seems to be, maybe it's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it. I reckon we should all be keeping a close eye on how governments use the "threat of terrorism" to justify increasingly aggressive policing, surveillance and curtailment of freedoms.

As promoted by the apparently unaccountable Tony Blair during the nightmare of his premiership :sadface:

[Pabmusic]

Sorry Richard, but my understanding is that though there was some talk in advance that he would not be read his rights, when it came to his initial questioning, he was in fact read them and nodded to indicate that he understood them. He also uttered the one word "No" in response to being asked if he could afford to pay for a lawyer to defend him.

This deals with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22250956

Apparently he was questioned 'extensively' before being read his rights. This seems to be allowable in special circumstances.

[aeolium]

I really don't see all this fuss about the mention of Nazi Germany. Comparing two things is not equivalent saying they're the same.

The actual words used by Boilk which you thought were used without hyperbole were "Was it much different from this in 1940s Nazi Germany?" I thought it was very different and described in what ways. Do you disagree with my description?

If there's a taboo on comparing contemporary Western societies to Nazi Germany, which there seems to be, maybe it's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it.

If there's a predilection for comparing Western societies, democracies operating under the rule of law and with well-established human rights, to totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, maybe that's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it.

[Bryn]

This deals with it: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22250956

Apparently he was questioned 'extensively' before being read his rights. This seems to be allowable in special circumstances.

I see no indication in that item linked to that he was actually "questioned 'extensively'" prior to being read his rights. "Mr Tsarnaev responded to questions mostly in writing. He nodded when asked if he was able to answer some questions and whether he understood his rights, the notes read." [My emphasis.] Indeed, the thrust of the article appears to me to be that his American citizenship and the lack of a perceived immediate threat from him precluded such questioning.

See also:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-chemerinsky-miranda-rights-for-tsarnaev-20130423,0,4032774.story

[Pabmusic]

...If there's a predilection for comparing Western societies, democracies operating under the rule of law and with well-established human rights, to totalitarian states like Nazi Germany, maybe that's worth questioning why, and whose interests are served by it.

Quite right. This is a false comparison created by the use of a bad analogy (Nazi Germany was not a democratic state where the rule of law was supposed to be paramount; the circumstances of today's USA are not comparable to those of 1930s Germany; the search for someone following a bombing is not comparable to the arrest of people as a result of political ideology or party dogma).

That said, the USA does sail close to the wind at times and sometimes goes too far (Guantanamo still exists, for instance).

[Pabmusic]

I see no indication in that item linked to that he was actually "questioned 'extensively'" prior to being read his rights. "Mr Tsarnaev responded to questions mostly in writing. He nodded when asked if he was able to answer some questions and whether he understood his rights, the notes read." [My emphasis.] Indeed, the thrust of the article appears to me to be that his American citizenship and the lack of a perceived immediate threat from him precluded such questioning.

See also:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...,4032774.story

Oh? I was guided by the eighth and ninth paragraphs (my emphases):

"Justice department officials said that in an effort to "gain critical intelligence", they decided to question Mr Tsarnaev "extensively" before giving him the so-called "Miranda" warning of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning.

The magistrate judge present at the bedside arraignment later advised Mr Tsarnaev of his rights and of the charges against him".

[Russ_H]

So your version of "law enforcement" involves violations of the US Constitution (I thought observance of that was the law?), effectively imprisoning a town in their own homes, forcing businesses to close, and holding all residents within a 20-block distance at gunpoint and having them frisked. I wasn't aware that people can hide a 17 year-old teenager in their back pocket or up their T-shirt.

I take it that if there's an alleged bomber on the run in your town, you don't mind yourself and your family being screamed at, held and searched with multiple guns trained on you and your children? Shame on you Russ_H if you think this is "law enforcement" - it is quite literally terrorism.

I did not present my version of law enforcement, and you have not answered my question.

Given a free hand, and assuming you were responsible for law enforcement in the town in question, how would
you have tackled the problem?

[amateur51]

Oh? I was guided by the eighth and ninth paragraphs (my emphases):

"Justice department officials said that in an effort to "gain critical intelligence", they decided to question Mr Tsarnaev "extensively" before giving him the so-called "Miranda" warning of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning.

The magistrate judge present at the bedside arraignment later advised Mr Tsarnaev of his rights and of the charges against him".

Had Mr Tsarnaev been aware of his rights, would it have been permissible for him to remain silent anyway without the so-called "Miranda" warning being made? :erm:


Me? I know nothing :smiley:

[Pabmusic]

Had Mr Tsarnaev been aware of his rights, would it have been permissible for him to remain silent anyway without the so-called "Miranda" warning being made? :erm:


Me? I know nothing :smiley:

The link I posted says this:

"The Miranda warning comes from a 1966 Supreme Court ruling that protects suspects from involuntary self-incrimination. If prosecutors want to use at trial statements made by a defendant in custody, law enforcement officials must first have advised them of their rights.

However, justice department officials relied on a 1984 Supreme Court ruling that established an exception allowing prosecutors to use statements made by a defendant prior to the Miranda warning in response to questions from law enforcement officials about an immediate threat to the public, such as a bomb.

A federal judge recently upheld the government's right to use such statements as direct evidence in the case of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a Nigerian man who was sentenced to life in prison for trying to blow up a Detroit-bound flight on 25 December 2009. He confessed to a nurse and spoke freely to FBI agents before being read the Miranda warning.

Legal rights advocates expressed concern about the use of the "public safety" exception in this case. The executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union said every defendant was entitled to be read Miranda rights.

"The public safety exception should be read narrowly. It applies only when there is a continued threat to public safety and is not an open-ended exception to the Miranda rule," Anthony Romero said in a statement. "We must not waver from our tried-and-true justice system, even in the most difficult of times. Denial of rights is un-American and will only make it harder to obtain fair convictions".

So it's not clear-cut. :erm:

[Bryn]

Oh? I was guided by the eighth and ninth paragraphs (my emphases):

"Justice department officials said that in an effort to "gain critical intelligence", they decided to question Mr Tsarnaev "extensively" before giving him the so-called "Miranda" warning of his right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present during questioning.

The magistrate judge present at the bedside arraignment later advised Mr Tsarnaev of his rights and of the charges against him".

Quite. All typical journalistic implication rather than a clear presentation of known facts. As with the earlier paragraphs, the 8th and 9th remain equivocal. Other U.S. press articles have argued strongly against the validity of such pre-Miranda questioning in this case and have stated that they "hoped" such questioning had not actually taken place, (which suggests it has not been make clear to the media whether or not the intention to interrogate prior to the reading of the 'Miranda' rights took place as planned or not). However, it has also been made quite clear that should such questioning have taken place, anything gleaned from that questioning would be inadmissible as evidence in Tsarnaev's trial. The only use to be made of any such questioning is the prevention of an immediate danger being realised.