Boston Marathon: Is terrorism ever justified?

[Serial_Apologist]

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

Possibly because whether or not the two were part of a wider conspiracy was at issue?

[amateur51]

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

Many thanks for clarifying that, Pabs :ok:

I think that Mr Romero's caution is right

[Pabmusic]

Possibly because whether or not the two were part of a wider conspiracy was at issue?

Many thanks for clarifying that, Pabs :ok:

I think that Mr Romero's caution is right

It would certainly be interesting if the case against the lad were to collapse because of a procedural error, wouldn't it?

[Bryn]

The link I posted says this:

" ... 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:

And it is pretty relevant to note that Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was described as being "a Nigerian man", rather than an American citizen, as is the case with Mr Tsarnaev, so different rules are likely to apply.

[amateur51]

It would certainly be interesting if the case against the lad were to collapse because of a procedural error, wouldn't it?

:I bet Obama's pleased that he's in his second term :biggrin:

[Richard Barrett]

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?

I think that in such situations it's very easy for the police to decide to suspend the usual rule of law. Obviously the USA and Nazi Germany are very different in most regards, as you say (although the idea that police abuses in the USA are always the subject of investigation and disciplinary or legal action is probably a little optimistic IMO); but I found the video posted by Boilk rather chilling and for a few minutes you might as well have been watching events in a totalitarian state. So my answer to you is yes and no.

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.

Absolutely right. Although I don't think one comparison amounts to a predilection. Whose interests do you think it serves to make such a comparison?

[handsomefortune]

democracies operating under the rule of law and with well-established human rights


secreted in the pages of uk mainstream press http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/ja...cy?INTCMP=SRCH

in a domestic context 'THE rule of law' is surely compromised by several police organisations operating simultaneously?

g4s, for example, may not have much in common with the objectives of the met in keeping order, and mI5 is different again.

in addition evidence suggests that orgs may act 'strangely' in certain pressurised 'special circumstances'. there are loads of examples of this historically, and perhaps now is precisely the time for all generations, old and new, to remember, or learn about them anew, even if generalisations about nazis do have to be mentioned in the process! surely it's better to do your own research, draw your own conclusions than rely on snoop doggy dog, or the queen's words of 'wisdom'...or lionel shriver's for that matter?

:peacedove:

[aeolium]

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

I totally agree, Pabmusic - a disgraceful situation (though one which has been the subject of legal challenges). And rendition, and torture inter alia. The only saving graces here are the constant operation of scrutiny about such instances, and the fact that the executive and law enforcement agencies in the USA are subject to the law and the court of international opinion (if not the international court).

Whose interests do you think it serves to make such a comparison?

I've no idea, RB. I do think that making such a comparison is a poor way of exercising the critical vigilance necessary to guard against police abuses and misconduct in that it simply invites rejection. There may well be Boston residents who are elderly refugees from the Nazi persecution and I think they would have understood the distinction between their earlier experiences and what was happening here.

[Boilk]

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

I have answered your question. I'll repeat the first sentence of my ealier post (#215):

The simple answer is that you do what you can WITHIN the remit of the law.

As has been posted elsewhere here, when the goverment acts above the law (which it claims to uphold), those laws are undermined at the highest level and it sets an example for citizens to follow.

[Richard Barrett]

There may well be Boston residents who are elderly refugees from the Nazi persecution and I think they would have understood the distinction between their earlier experiences and what was happening here.

Yes, but they're just as likely to have understood the connection, I think.

I'm not clear as to why you asked the question about whose interests such comparisons might serve. I think it's important to ask the question whose interests a taboo on such comparisons might serve, because one possible answer could be people in positions of authority whose agenda includes pushing the envelope of the law in such a way as to gain acceptance of increasingly draconian measures. The comparison might "simply invite rejection" as you say but that doesn't necessarily make it less enlightening or useful. But surely the comparison in itself is a side-issue to the matters under discussion.

[Mr Pee]

:steam: Here we go again
You don't "ignore" people by telling them you are "ignoring" them
that is what some would term "passive aggressive"

Whatever. At least boilk knows that he needn't waste both our time by responding to me.

Actually, this is one of those occasions when I wish it was possible to hide this entire thread. It is alarming to see supposedly intelligent individuals coming with such deluded nonsense, such as equating the USA with Nazi Germany and somehow muddling up teenagers, law enforcement agencies, and terrorists. It worries me that a post such as boilks has not been universally condemned. Far too many contributors here seem to live in some sort of loony left fantasy land. If you're happy there, fair enough, although one day you might find the real world will intrude. Good luck with that.

[french frank]

Actually, this is one of those occasions when I wish it was possible to hide this entire thread.

I can't put an Access Mask on an individual thread, but I can do so on Platform 3, I think, so you wouldn't have to read any of those topics... ?

[Boilk]

Actually, this is one of those occasions when I wish it was possible to hide this entire thread.

Suppression of an entire thread because Mr Pee cannot tolerate differing viewpoints posted?
An unprecedented comment on the FoR3 forum I believe and, I think, a somewhat revealing remark about the poster.

[Richard Barrett]

deluded nonsense, such as equating the USA with Nazi Germany and somehow muddling up teenagers, law enforcement agencies, and terrorists.

I mentioned to you once before in this thread that you weren't really paying attention to what people are saying, and it seems to be becoming a habit with you.
Boilk compared one event in the USA to what (as I've said before) would indeed have been a much more common occurrence in Nazi Germany. Have you actually watched all of the video he put in his post?
Nobody has "muddled" the categories you mention. If there's any muddle it lies with you I'm afraid. For example it seems to me very clear that if bombing innocent people in Boston is terrorism ("the calculated use of violence or threat of violence to attain goals that are political, religious, or ideological in nature...through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear"), bombing innocent people in Afghanistan must also be. A terrorist is someone who commits terrorism according to some definition of that word (the quoted one being from the US Army), wherever and to whomsoever they do it and for whatever reasons.

[aeolium]

I'm not clear as to why you asked the question about whose interests such comparisons might serve.

I suppose one concern I have with that kind of - to me - lazy comparison is that it blurs the distinction between the really unaccountable authoritarian regime, such as Nazi Germany, and a regime where there are many different kinds of accountability, democratic, legal, free expression of opinion etc. And there may be a tendency to conclude that the evils and failings of the American regime are so egregious as to render it essentially little better (or even worse) than an authoritarian regime, particularly one with a different philosophy - this was after all what many intellectuals concluded in the last century when they supported the Soviet Union despite its obvious authoritarianism.

I think it's important to ask the question whose interests a taboo on such comparisons might serve, because one possible answer could be people in positions of authority whose agenda includes pushing the envelope of the law in such a way as to gain acceptance of increasingly draconian measures. The comparison might "simply invite rejection" as you say but that doesn't necessarily make it less enlightening or useful.

Well, for one thing there is no taboo. And I actually think that people in authority who want to push for draconian measures really don't fear comparisons with Nazi authorities because they will be so readily dismissed. You will not, for instance, see people like Shami Chakrabarti making such ill-judged comments.

Still, it is getting OT, as you say, so I shall shut up.