Free Republic

Are you saying the main guy in that 1:40 video you posted at the beginning of this thread is Tamerlan? Because it is clearly not him, although it could be Liam Neeson’s illegitimate son.

Or are you saying Tamerlan is one of the OTHER guys in the video? If so, how can you tell - all of the other guys are wearing ski masks or hats pulled down so you can’t really see their face.

I don't think he is looking at the bearded guy, I think he is looking past him. I suspect that Tamerlan walked on ahead of him, after planting the first bomb and turning around and walking back, and that he is looking to see where Tamerlan is.

The little Saudi guy al-Harbi supposedly was injured in the blast. I don't see him here or in the set of photos taken at the other blast site in the seconds following the explosion.

good point: unlawful enemy combatant and no Geneva Convention protection.

Guy in the youtube looks more like Liam Neeson than Tamarlan Tsaernov

“He should be declared an enemy combatant”

As it stands now, the Congressional declaration we are working under for the war on terror is limited to the groups who attacked us on 9/11.

So they need to technically tie him to al-Qaeda or the Taliban or an associated group to designated him an enemy combatant.

What we need is for Congress to broaden the authorization to refer to all jihadi fighters acting in the name of Islam, and then we can more easily treat someone like this an enemy combatant without first having to find evidence linked to a known al-Qaeda network.

“Your statement said the FBI marandized the guy.”

Liar.

If your point is why was I hesitant to take this woman’s word for it on the miranda point, since after all she is the US Attorney on this case, it’s because unlike the typical case in her office, she is not calling the shots here - all the important decisions are being made by main Justice.

Had she read a prepared statement that covered the miranda point, we could be sure the prepared statement had been vetted by DC and I would put stock in that.

But she was just responding off the cuff to a question. I wanted to hear it from main Justice or the FBI to know for sure.

Actually, it wasn't at the point in the race timed to achieve maximum carnage.

They were about two hours late for that. I've been wondering why they were delayed. If they had been much later, they might have had to call it off as the crowd was thinning more and more.

Did they build the bombs just before the attack, and it took longer than they thought to build them? Did someone else provide the bombs to them, and that person got the bombs to them later than planned? Did someone else drive them to the scene, and that person was late?

I didn’t state that the FBI had mirandized the guy.

I said “it wouldn’t surprise me if the FBI had mirandized the guy.”

Do you understand the difference between the two sentences above?

We need to be able to treat jihadi terrorists, even terrorists who strike in our homeland, as enemy combatants and not criminal defendants.

The problem is that we currently have a gap in our legal procedures that are not consistent with our Constitution.

As it stands now the president claims he has the power to unilaterally decide, based on secret evidence he doesn’t have to show anyone and not subject to any oversight, that any particular individual, including a US citizen detained in the United States far from any battlefield or the scene of any attack, is an “enemy combatant” and not entitled to constitutional rights.

Under this claimed power, the president could secretly make a determination tomorrow that the owners of Free Republic are “enemy combatants” and pack JimRob off to Gitmo for an indefinite Caribbean holiday.

We need to fix this aspect of it so that there are checks and balances on the procedure of designating an individual as an enemy combatant and that the power of the president is limited consistent with our Constitution, so that president is truly a president and not a military dictator.

The mainstream media is not going to be able to avoid mentioning Islam in connection with this story.

However, I expect they will adopt the strategy of playing up the Chechen nationalism angle in order to overshadow talk of global jihad.

With the Chechen nationalism angle they can make the Chechens out to be victims, and maybe even find a way to work in a few shots at George W. Bush.

It's just astonishing that within mere months after 9/11 the US government is welcoming Chechen muslims with open arms to resettle in the US.

The Ruling Class truly has a death wish for this country.

We can charge him with reckless homicide of his own brother!

Thanks for the kind words.

My point anyway is somewhat theoretical - there is so much evidence already in possession against this guy that the miranda point we are discussing probably is not significant one way or another.

This is a slam dunk case from an evidence point of view. I don’t see anything significant right now that a defense lawyer has to work with - unless the cops or prosecutors foolishly screw up and hand them something to work with, and I would hate to see that.

Because of the overwhelming nature of the evidence, and assuming no screw-ups on our side, there should be no serious chance of this going to trial. The negotiating between the two legal sides should quickly arrive at negotiating over penalty in exchange for cooperation.

Of course if Holder won’t seek the death penalty, that weakens the government negotiating position. On the other hand, if this guy is a true believer, he may WANT to be put to death by the US and go collect his virgins, so it depends. And in that case, he’s certainly not going to cooperate and tell what he knows about other members of the terrorist cell or network.

No, you’ve got it backwards — it’s NOT correct that mirandizing a guy makes him a suspect triggering his rights.

It’s when the entirety of the circumstances require that you treat a person of interest as a suspect that you are then required to respect certain constitutional rights and if you wish to question him, then mirandize him.

Look, I’ve argued for thirty years that the exclusionary rule is bass-ackwards. I have always said the right way to go on this is to punish the cops, and not the public. Evidence is evidence. If a cop violated someone’s constitutional rights to get it, then we should punish the cop. We should not punish the public by pretending the evidence does not exist.

By the way, I don’t disagree with your reasoning if the facts were somewhat different. If we were dealing with foreign jihadis who just came across the border and committed terrorism, then yeah, by mirandizing them you probably really ARE telling them something they don’t know and could cause them to shut up.

Did the officers act “reasonably”? Did they act in “good faith”? What if the Obama judge is convinced the officers MUST have heard the kid say clearly that there was no danger in relation to the locker, and the judge concludes the cops acted in bad faith by proceeding further themselves.

EACH of the elements of the exception is ammunition for the defense.

Experience teaches that unless one has very strong reasons for doing so, one doesn’t play these things close to the line. There is too much opportunity for things to get unstuck down the line.

Okay, so you let’s say you DON’T mirandize the kid.

And you ask him, and he mumbles something about a storage locker. You send other officers and EOD to open the locker. There are no devices in there, but there are a whole lot of written notebooks detailing the planning for the crime, naming other accomplices to the crime, and a whole bunch of stuff - a veritable gold mine for the prosecuting attorneys.

Except later, the defense moves to exclude all of that — it turns out what the perp claims he mumbles to you was “there are no bombs in the locker but my notebooks are in a locker at...” Some leftwing nutbag Obama-appointed judge denies your public safety exception.

So all that stuff is excluded. And now the best the prosecutors can argue is that investigators had an independent source of that evidence - they would have found it anyway. Is that gonna fly? Maybe, maybe not.

As I say, this college kid ALREADY KNOWS he doesn’t have to talk to police. He’s seen a thousand cop shows in his life. You gain nothing by not mirandizing him.

I heard her say that. She isn’t the local DA, she is the US Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. She was responding to a question from the media.

It wouldn’t surprise me if the FBI had already mirandized the guy even before she made her statement and she just didn’t know what was going on.

Not mirandizing this kid as a practical matter gains nothing for the reasons I gave, but potentially could seriously complicate the prosecution.

If the defense lawyers can successfully challenge the exemption, then not only the statements made by the defendant must be excluded from evidence, but also any OTHER evidence that in turn is found based on clues from the inadmissible statement (the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine). There are a number of exceptions to this exception, but you've just handed the defense something to fight with as you litigate whether it falls within the exceptions to the exception. You get a stupid judge or a left-wing wacko judge, and the prosecutors might get screwed.

Since Obama is not going to enhance interrogate this guy anyway, just read him his rights and get on with it.

We’ve got at least a couple of federal capital crimes to charge him with. In the last ten years Congress expanded the category of these crimes.

Detonating an explosive device in the crowd on a public street should qualify as federal capital crime under the expanded statute.

Also, killing the MIT cop is probably a federal capital crime, even though the cop was not a federal agent, because the perps were the object of a federal investigation and did so to avoid apprehension.

A bigger question is whether Holder would be willing to seek the federal death penalty, even though it appears he has grounds to do so. I think no.

Well, that’s the classic use of the public safety exception. (Good work, by the way.)

Here, the guy already knows he doesn’t have to talk to police. It’s hard to find a college student in the country who doesn’t know that.

And a lot of robbers actually wouldn’t want a kid to find his gun and get hurt or hurt someone. A lot of them may be robbers, but are still human beings.

But THIS guy is a jihadi terrorist dirtbag. Asking him “where are the rest of the IEDs?” isn’t going to make him more likely to tell you by not mirandizing him. He WANTS innocent people to get blown up by them.

There is no reason NOT to mirandize.

In the first place, the guy has spent the last 10 years living in Boston. I recall seeing a passing reference to him watching CSI as I rolled down his old twitter postings. Telling him miranda rights is not telling him something he does not already know. That’s quite different than taking into custody some ignorant terrorist in Afghanistan. Telling that guy he doesn’t have to talk and can get a free lawyer if he wants could make a huge difference.

Secondly, Holder and Obama will NEVER authorize enhanced interrogation. So they aren’t really going to interrogate him anyway. If the guy decides to talk, it’s not going to be because he doesn’t know about his miranda rights.

So the reality is, in this situation we don’t gain anything by not mirandizing him, and not doing just gives an opening to his lawyer to try to explore whether not mirandizing was really justified under the exception.

Man, the Preezy is just going through the motions reading the statement written for him. If he had his beloved teleprompter he wouldn’t have to look at his script so much.

Gotta hand it to Laz who posted a thread earlier that only thing that made him genuinely mad was not getting his gun registry passed. He doesn’t really care all that much about these attacks.

They’d be wise to have STRONG security at the hospital.

From many reports, Chechen Jihadis are some nasty pieces of work and if there are more members of the cell they might well go and try to kill a bunch of people at the hospital to try to get to this guy or just inflict damage.

“You sure that was really Jakbar posting?”

No question what with the a-hole tweet about “aint no love in the heart of the city” right after the bombing. That was before anyone knew he was the bomber, therefore no one spoofed that.

It seems clear the perps didn't think they needed an exit plan. Jokhtar was tweeting normally AFTER the bombing.

These guys dropped their bombs and just walked home. They figured the Americanskys are too degenerate and stupid to catch them.

I think they were going about their business and probably deciding what to attack next and were caught off guard by the broadcasting of the FBI photos.

There is no way to fight the evidence, and he’s got no insanity defense.

The bargaining will come down to no death penalty in exchange for cooperation.

He may opt for the death penalty, depends how committed he is to jihad.

Right now, if he has weapons, he’s probably ready for his 72 virgins and is likely is trying to find a way to take as many people with him as he can.

Better to take him alive if possible, at least a chance of info, but certainly don’t risk casualties on our side.

“Obama will order a beer summit.”

Biden will have to handle the duties this time with his non-alcoholic beer, so as not to offend the muzzie.

I just heard Eric Holder is rushing to the scene to stand between the perp and the Boston police, to keep them from “acting stupidly”.

If the perp had been hiding somewhere in the neighborhood all this time, he must have been somewhat famished and decided to come out and make a last stand while he still had some energy left to try to take out some other people.

“they interviewed Tsarnaev 2 years ago at the request of a foreign country about possible extremist ties”

That almost certainly is Russia.

Did Obama stiff Russia on cooperation with fighting islamism for the purpose of protecting muslims (”if the political winds shift...”)?

That might explain some of the hostility of the Putin regime, although there are certainly other reasons for it.

The wife converted to Islam -

Before WHICH IMAM did she recite the shahada?

At WHICH MOSQUE?

Why is there no reporting in the media on what mosque these guys attended? Is that because the Saudi who Obama wanted to get out of the country has a connection at that same mosque?

Not surprisingly, the dirtbag is (was?) an Obama supporter: In his twitter account scroll down to Nov 6, he retweets Barack Obama’s tweet “This happened because of you. Thank you.”

Then, before that, he retreats “WFT Romney is winning??” (remember when the late polls were showing Romney pulling even or ahead) - the Obamites were freaking out.

We’ve heard from this woman for years - in her case it’s characteristic liberal egocentrism.

She repeatedly retails the rape story to establish her personal narrative of victimhood and claim to moral superiority.

This woman is such a fool.

NOW she has no problem with the TSA singling out muslims for extra scrutiny???

Not long ago she would have been indignantly calling them islamophobes and threatening lawsuits.

Wow - was Jahar the Mufti’s catamite when he was a young teen or pre-teen?

How big is the Boston islam community? Did the Chechens and the Saudis go to the same mosque in Boston?

If he lives it may be more likely that some dots start getting connected.

Yep. If he dies, the MSM will spin it as Caucasians who were pushed over the edge by intolerant bullies who were not sensitive to their multicultural ways, everything else will try to be shoved down the memory hole.

If he lives he's going to be spouting off with allahu akhbar and their muslim b.s. and it will be unavoidable this was jihadi terrorism.

Many auto finance companies have been as irresponsible as the home mortgage lenders in terms of handing out financing for new cars to anyone with a pulse.

So it doesn't necessarily mean they were flush with cash, they could have just taken advantage of the affirmative-action lack of credit standards which has been prevalent for many years.

It seems at first analysis that once the FBI (finally!) circulated images of them, THEN they put on their suicide vests and gathered their weapons and decided to jack a car and get out of Dodge.

In other words, what’s kind of astonishing about this, is that these guys were thinking they could walk (or drive?) a short distance across the river, deposit on the sidewalk in the middle of crowds backpacks with bombs, kill and maim a bunch of people, and then they could just stroll back across the river and go home.

A number of posters, including me, thought it likely these were foreign muslim students but I did not really think they were actually resident in Boston, that they would be that brazen and apparently unconcerned about capture.

Perhaps the conventional wisdom among the jihadis in their circle is that Americans are all degenerate buffoons, and too dumb to catch these guys.

One of the groups he linked to on his page is “Free Chechnya”:

http://vk.com/free_chechnya

Under “friends and relatives” lists a Maret Tsarnaeva also from Cambridge MA. And lists a Ruslan Tranaev of Rockville MD.

22 years old, listed in Cambridge Mass. Sounds like a relative.

It appears from his social media page this guy is a devout muslim.

Which Boston-area mosque were these guys associated with? Who was their Imam in Boston?

http://vk.com/id160300242

The hi res image is very good and clearly shows that is not Suspect #1.

It also has the clearest image yet of the white hat guy, Suspect # 2.

“the assault on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco”

The assault on the Branch Davidian compound was ordered by Janet Reno. Who knew she was an anti-government right-wing wacko?

The hat is a different color, the jacket has a lining or lapel which has a different color, but more importantly if you highly magnify the photo you see the guy you think is Suspect #1 is walking so closely together with a woman he likely has his arm around her. Look especially at the feet to see how closely together they are. Behind the larger woman clearly seen in the photo in front of the guy is another smaller woman who is walking with that guy so closely they must be arm and arm.

I think you've got the wrong guy here.

The second guy about 30 feet behind
(1) looks shorter than Suspect #1,
(2) has a reddish hat, whereas Suspect #1 had a dark blue or black hat and
(3) has a tan lining on his hood, whereas Suspect #1 has a blue lining on his hood.

Looking further at the video, I matched it up with Google streetview.

The two suspects coming south on Gloucester turned left onto Boylston where they walked east, in the same direction as the runners, and were captured on the time stamp of the video at about 2:38 p.m. That's a block and a half from the second blast site and two blocks and a half from the first blast site. So clearly the video was not reversed.

Since the bombs detonated at 2:47 p.m. those two did NOT dawdle anywhere. They walked straight to their target spots, deposited their bags and then at least Suspect #2 the white-hat guy returned the way he came but turned north one block short (on Fairfield) of the way they came, as it appears from the high-res photo.