'Conspiring to use weapons of mass destruction' is weird to me though.
Can someone comment on:
- Any bombs in general being considered WMD in MA/Federal law?
- Intent to cause as much dmg as possible just not having the means for it being considered conspiracy to use WMD?
I think it is obvious from the bomb types and the damage they caused that they were pretty far off from acquiring ABC material.
Also wouldn't this mean that any mass killer that used any kind of (set) explosives should be charged with conspiracy to use WMD, since if those crazy people actually had WMD they would have used them to cause more damage?
Last edited by gend; 2013-04-22 at 07:48 PM.
How much money are we gonna spend on this guy? 9000 public employee's on overtime pay. A huge medical bill to save his life.
Mass doesnt have a death penalty, so another 60 years to keep him fed and housed.
Anyone hoping for rehabilitation and an early release? im sure he isnt a "bad person" just fell on hard times (typical sob story people fall for).
IRA: Part for the 'freedom' and against protestants.
majority of all european conflicts (england vs span and france was mainly due to catholic vs protestant)
Fairly sure alot of the islam fuelled deaths are internal (the muslim equivalent of catholic vs protestaant)
Since the russians suspected his brother had links with chechen rebels, an enemy of russia, i can see them requesting him otherwise so they can 'question' him.
Bags they had could be a "coincidence" they were in bags similar to those with the bombs.
Suspicious? Posting islamic doesn't make you a terrorist, like posting German doesn't make you a nazi, posting like a 'gangsta' doesn't make you one (idiot yes, gangsta no). You need proof they made the bombs, be it explosives at home of prints on the bomb or instructions at home
May of already been said.
Chechen blow up school in russia killing hundreds: generic terrorist attack
Chechen blows up a marathon in US wounding hundreds: fears its a globally supported religious attack
Tiny over-the-top response, why they target the US because the terror lasts,
“The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” - Emerson
In germany they recently released domestic terrorists from the 70s. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_Faction)
There was a political discussion if that was the right choice but nobody would 'attack' them. Barely anyone could even recognize them.
I would assume they'll be charging him with more stuff.
---------- Post added 2013-04-23 at 06:24 AM ----------
We could be back to the Iraq scenario here. So how about the following scenarios staring us in the face. What should the United States' course of action be in each one?
1. We definitively find a link between the bombers and some terrorist training camp / group in Chechnya.
1a. Russia fully cooperates with our investigation.
1b. Russia does not fully cooperate with our investigation.
1c. Russia prevents us from investigating.
2. We only can reasonably assume based on the intel we gather that the bombers were aided and trained by some group in Chechnya. The intel may be good or bad.
2a. Russia fully cooperates with our investigation.
2b. Russia does not fully cooperate with our investigation.
2c. Russia prevents us from investigating.
3. We find not even the slightest link between the bombers and any terrorist group in Chechnya.
For a frame of reference, when dealing with Iraq, Bush faced scenario 2b, and that was over the 1991 cease-fire rules, not bombers. Bush decided that non-compliance with inspections / our investigation was enough to invade to make sure they had no WMDs. The democrats then told some enormous lies and shouted that Bush went to war because he thought they had WMDs, which was never true. Bush invaded Iraq over non-compliance. Finding WMDs didn't matter at that point. Unfortunately, enough of the public bought those lies and that destroyed Bush.
It will be interesting to see how Russia plays this depending on what evidence comes to light. Russia may be more prone to comply since they have had problems with Chechnya themselves, so we never wind up in scenario 2b.
I'm afraid that after the lies told by the political left about the Iraq invasion that common sense goes out the window and we take the "wimp clause", deciding to do nothing about Chechnya, even if the strongest links are found.
Last edited by Grummgug; 2013-04-23 at 12:36 PM.