A pair of explosions rocks the finish line at the Boston Marathon, injuring at least a half-dozen people.

  On 4/24/2013 at 8:41 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

Problem won't be solved until the 'war on terror' as a concept ceases to exist.

O? So if there was no war on terror, there would be no bombings at marathons?

And btw, what did they call the bombings in England at the time the IRA was active? Was that terrorism? I'm sure highschool shootings and bombings were already called and approached differently before this "war on terror" concept even existed.

And what is the problem anyways? People killing people? That wont stop when the "war on terrorism" concept ceases to exist. People killing people out of some misplaced ideology? Neither. People killing people due to mental health issues? Neither.

This problem, whatever it is, goes beyond semantics. Way beyond. Unless you make it like the semantics itself is the problem. But I know one thing: semantics don't kill people.

Even if it is true that these boys actions were influenced by US international policies. Even then I'd argue this point to be irrelevant. It becomes relevant when actions like these are frequent (within US borders), but they are not. This was an incident. Blaming international policies for this incident is nuts, whatever you could think of these policies. I'm not supporting these policies, but blaming these policies for this incident...no. I heard the older brother was an Infowars adept. Should we blame Infowars as well? ....But this is crossing the line into bigotry, of course.

Point: there is no "the problem". There are many. US international policies are far from perfect, but that fight should be picked another day. Somewhere in the future, after this incident has been investigated. Don't use this incident to pick up old fights. That's one of the reasons US politics is sick, btw. Things tend to get politicised way before the factchecker and the crosschecker have been used.

labeling something as "terrorist" shit opens up a whole bunch of different legal rights, regarding how the US as a state can treat them.

the semantics are meaningless without legal context. basically, obama can say "john smith is a terrist" and then his rights poof away, whereas that would not be the case 100 years ago. it's similar to labeling someone a commie in the 50s/60s, but there are a lot more expansive legal rights explicitly defined for how you can treat a terrorist than there ever was for commies.

the fact checker and cross checker concept is defined, in my opinion, with the separation of powers - good old checks and balances.

it's not a perfect system, but lately, there have been changes that set a dangerous precedent of the president forgoing those checks in favor of expediency or any other unacceptable reason.

i am happy that the administration did not decide to declare him an enemy combatant, but there is a legal system in place (which the next president will obviously be constrained to) to do so easily at the whim of this single person. with our current political climate, this continuing consolidation of power is horrifying.

So, because it was already clear that the bomber will be treated under regular law, there's no real point in discussing the terrorism aspect, right? This doesn't fall under the "War on Terror". No Guantanomo. No militairy law. Just ordinairy law. End of.

edit: no wait. only "end of" after a compliment by John/Greenwald that the government did something right, for a change. (heaven forbid)

Heh, 'war on terror' Don't be ridiculous! ... the terror is what USA doing to the rest of the world.

Although those bombers should be punished (death penalty?) lets not forget that there's a world outside USA too.

Just a few days before this terrible bombing USA military killed tens of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Their respond was ''Ups! Shit happens.'' Was that on news all over the world too? No!..and that was just one of many slaughterings in a long row.

War on terror really only means to kill or suppress everybody how stand on their path to global imperialism. Yesterday that was SSSR, today is Arab world and some Asians, tomorrow who knows...Gog & Magog?

America! America!

America! (Fuck Yeah!)
Comin' again to save the motherfuckin day yeah!
America! (Fuck Yeah!)
Freedom is the only way, yeah!
Terrorists your game is through,
cause now you have to answer to...
America! (Fuck Yeah!)
So lick my butt and suck on my balls!
America (Fuck Yeah!)
Whatcha gonna do when we come for you, now!
It's the dream that we all share...
Its the hope for tomorrow...
(Fuck Yeah!)

Mcdonalds! (Fuck Yeah!)
Wal-Mart! (Fuck Yeah!)
The Gap! (Fuck Yeah!)
Baseball! (Fuck Yeah!)
NFL! (Fuck Yeah!)
Rock n' Roll! (Fuck Yeah!)
The Internet! (Fuck Yeah!)
Slavery! (Fuck Yeah!)

Fuck Yeah!

Starbucks! (Fuck Yeah!)
Disney World! (Fuck Yeah!)
Porno! (Fuck Yeah!)
Valium! (Fuck Yeah!)
Reeboks! (Fuck Yeah!)
Fake Tits! (Fuck Yeah)
Sushi! (Fuck Yeah!)
Taco Bell! (Fuck Yeah!)
Rodeos! (Fuck Yeah!)
Bed Bath and Beyond! (...fuck yeah...)

Liberty! (Fuck Yeah!)
Wax Lips! (Fuck Yeah!)
The Alamo! (Fuck Yeah!)
Band-Aids! (Fuck Yeah!)
Las Vegas! (Fuck Yeah!)
Christmas! (Fuck Yeah!)
Immigrants! (Fuck Yeah!)
Pop Eye! (Fuck Yeah!)
Democrats! (Fuck Yeah!)
Republicans! (...fuck yeah...)
Sportsmanship!
Books!

but didn't the gov question him without miranda rights? isn't that an example of how the issue of "terrorism" is not a semantic one, since in this particular instance it lead directly to certain legal rights being witheld?

@ godel

  Quote

 

The word "terrorism" is, at this point, one of the most potent in our political lexicon: it single-handedly ends debates, ratchets up fear levels, and justifies almost anything the government wants to do in its name.

Apparently, it works both ways. Even if this case will be brought in front of a normal jury, there's still no debate possible. Because the fear for the war on terror should be felt nevertheless. The fear is just pointed into the opposite direction (towards bad us policies).

i'm probably restating what awepittance (and others?) have already said, but the point, for me, is that there is a legal system in place for a single person to declare john smith a terrorist and execute him, without any legal recourse for john smith. i don't care what john smith is accused of, it is a tenet of the US justice system that they are tried in court and have the right to legal counsel.

obama used discretion. he did the "right" thing imo, but he is free to do it differently next time. it is the system that is the problem, with the frightening combination of consolidation of power and decreased transparency. sure, i'll pat obama on the back for using discretion.

it's like buying a sports car and saying you'll never take it over the speed limit (and neither will any future owners!). what if tomorrow you want to floor it? what if the next owner of the sports car wants to floor it?

  On 4/24/2013 at 4:57 PM, Alcofribas said:

but didn't the gov question him without miranda rights? isn't that an example of how the issue of "terrorism" is not a semantic one, since in this particular instance it lead directly to certain legal rights being witheld?

 

@ godel

Didn't those practices already take place before this "war on terror"? I believe Brian Levin pointed that out in last episode of Mahers blabla. Perhaps in overtime.

It was always possible for the police to ask whether a suspect had any guns or bombs in case of emergency. So the miranda rights issue should be dealt with regardless of a "war on terror".

  On 4/24/2013 at 4:57 PM, Alcofribas said:

but didn't the gov question him without miranda rights? isn't that an example of how the issue of "terrorism" is not a semantic one, since in this particular instance it lead directly to certain legal rights being witheld?

 

@ godel

he was technically questioned with the public safety provision - NY v Quarles supreme court case

i think obama wanted to make it very clear they weren't using their special provision that gives additional rights to interrogators when a captured individual is labeled a "terrorist" or "enemy combatant" (not sure on language)

Exactly!

  On 4/24/2013 at 5:02 PM, theSun said:

i'm probably restating what awepittance (and others?) have already said, but the point, for me, is that there is a legal system in place for a single person to declare john smith a terrorist and execute him, without any legal recourse for john smith. i don't care what john smith is accused of, it is a tenet of the US justice system that they are tried in court and have the right to legal counsel.

 

obama used discretion. he did the "right" thing imo, but he is free to do it differently next time. it is the system that is the problem, with the frightening combination of consolidation of power and decreased transparency. sure, i'll pat obama on the back for using discretion.

 

it's like buying a sports car and saying you'll never take it over the speed limit (and neither will any future owners!). what if tomorrow you want to floor it? what if the next owner of the sports car wants to floor it?

  On 4/24/2013 at 4:22 PM, theSun said:

the fact checker and cross checker concept is defined, in my opinion, with the separation of powers - good old checks and balances.

 

it's not a perfect system, but lately, there have been changes that set a dangerous precedent of the president forgoing those checks in favor of expediency or any other unacceptable reason.

 

i am happy that the administration did not decide to declare him an enemy combatant, but there is a legal system in place (which the next president will obviously be constrained to) to do so easily at the whim of this single person. with our current political climate, this continuing consolidation of power is horrifying.

Good points, btw.

@John: I know you like to discuss this point. I'm just a bit of a sissypants because I don't feel this thread, at this moment, is the right place for this discussion. Especially because it has been discussed a million times and in this instance, the government actually did some things right, imo. No hard feelings and all.

just throwing another piece in there, as i continue working all this out in my own head:

whoever gets the terrorist label of the obama provision and is held under this new provision will likely eventually sue the US gov't. the supreme court will have to rule on the constitutionality of the law in that case. this is one reason that it is useful for obama to wait to use this provision explicitly. since the public safety clause has been held in court, it is now acceptable in every case unless the decision is explicitly overturned.

so - it's not like obama can just go around and detain us citizens indefinitely now (without citing public safety), but if the eventual legal case is upheld, this will indeed be legally permissible. obama/the next prez only needs to find one instance where it will hold up in court.

obama can, however, indefinitely detain enemy combatants without any legal process or even any specific accusation of wrong doing (gitmo). it doesn't seem like a huge leap to include us citizens into this category of lawless, indefinite incarceration.

they could also just say "fuck it" and hold the guy without charges illegally (jose padilla) with no consequence like bush

but my point is that if obama does end up using this new miranda provision, it will likely be tried in court.

I get you and totally agree, i was jus sayin.

personally i believe we should drop the term "terrorist" and replace with "skrillex"

I'm not sure about the legalities, but it wouldn't surprise me if that only counts for the people already at gitmo. Those people are in legal neverland. Could obama actually send new people to gitmo without making new temporary hacks in the laws?

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:01 PM, goDel said:

legal neverland

that sounds fun!

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:29 PM, zaphod said:

 

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:01 PM, goDel said:

legal neverland

 

that sounds fun!

 

it's pretty true though. i'm not sure exactly what status gitmo has or how exactly it has been used in the last few years. all i know is that it is basically the US rounding up POWs and declaring them terrorists so that they can detain them indefinitely and basically do whatever they want to these people.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22278224

nice work internet bomb detectives

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:01 PM, goDel said:

 

Could obama actually send new people to gitmo without making new temporary hacks in the laws?

probably for PR reasons it would be a bad move, and attract attention to a Gulag he promised to close as one of his first agendas back in 2008. Instead new 'enemy combatants' get sent to places like Bagrham airforce base or countless other out-sourced gulags. The last figure I saw was something like over 75 secret prisons around the globe, in mostly countries with questionable human rights which in-take American 'enemy combatants . Jeremy Scahill's new books lays out this out quite nicely. Under current US law however an 'enemy combatant' has absolutely no constitutional rights, so technically Gitmo is still open for business if they saw fit to use it that way.

and to reinfoce just how embarassing Gitmo is, former Bush official had this to say about it:

  Quote

 

"George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld covered up that hundreds of innocent men were sent to Gitmo prison camp because they feared that releasing them would harm the push for the war in Iraq and the broader war on terror."

 

so there you have it, for PR reasons so they can continue their manufactured 'War on terror' we have kept a gulag open for over 12 years...

Some people like Chris Hedges and Thomas Drake (nsa whistleblower) propose that the NDAA provision was passed to cover their asses legally for things they have already been doing. The theory goes that American citizens are already currently indefinitely detained.. somewhere but nobody knows for sure. The NDAA provision could also 'cover' the legality of bombing Anwar Al Alawki and his 16 year old son, both of whom were American citizens.

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:31 PM, theSun said:

 

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:29 PM, zaphod said:

 

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:01 PM, goDel said:

legal neverland

 

that sounds fun!

 

it's pretty true though. i'm not sure exactly what status gitmo has or how exactly it has been used in the last few years. all i know is that it is basically the US rounding up POWs and declaring them terrorists so that they can detain them indefinitely and basically do whatever they want to these people.

 

Yeah, can you imagine the ironic mirth of selling MIA t-shirts and bumper stickers in taliban villages.

the term "enemy combatant" has been used pretty frequently lately. this is a made up term to replace prisoner of war and i don't know why the UN allows the US to do this and treat its POWs without any consideration for human rights.

how are our own prisoners of war viewed by us? we view our POWs as fallen heroes, everyone has seen the POW-MIA flag. so is it any surprise that these "enemy combatants" that we capture, torture and kill are viewed in a similar, heroic light by their family/friends/neighbors? it's a basic argument that i have been making for a while when discussing the turrists outside watmm, and no person, however conservative or liberal, can argue against it.

that statement by al-muslimi hits the nail on the head. and yemen isn't even a country we've technically invaded yet!

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:49 PM, Shit Attack said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22278224

 

 

nice work internet bomb detectives

Behead those who post on Reddit

  On 4/25/2013 at 5:11 PM, Iain C said:

 

  On 4/24/2013 at 7:49 PM, Shit Attack said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22278224

 

 

nice work internet bomb detectives

 

Behead those who post on Reddit