Explosions At Boston Marathon

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

Around 10 pages ago I mentioned torture. When I said I have sources, I basically meant to say I really can't tell you from where... Lets just say I know a lot of people that work in the area.

A couple of posts later, I mentioned the senate intelligent report that cast significant doubt on how effective torture really was.

[Shennanigans]

Just to say... has there been any proof that these guys did the deed apart from a blurry video and fighting the police. Dont want sound naive here but to me this manhunt kind of goes over the top for that kind of evidence... whats next? trial with all bombing victims in the jury and then public excecution? The USA should try to keep it down and be less hysterical about these kind of terror, show greatness and keep it civil, to gain a higher moral standing above people who only got hate on the US on their mind. Personally that whole treatment disgusts me and everyone is hysterical out there and looking for blood, nothing is gained from that except the notion for terrorists how easy it is to make the US lose their mind and getting terrorized.

There is a treasure of evidence in their apartments as well a duplicate of the bomb used at the bombing. That's not good evidence?

As well as the fact that the confessed to being the boston bombers to the carjacking victim before setting him free.

[Deleted]

Just to say... has there been any proof that these guys did the deed apart from a blurry video and fighting the police. Dont want sound naive here but to me this manhunt kind of goes over the top for that kind of evidence... whats next? trial with all bombing victims in the jury and then public excecution? The USA should try to keep it down and be less hysterical about these kind of terror, show greatness and keep it civil, to gain a higher moral standing above people who only got hate on the US on their mind. Personally that whole treatment disgusts me and everyone is hysterical out there and looking for blood, nothing is gained from that except the notion for terrorists how easy it is to make the US lose their mind and getting terrorized.

No proof whatsoever, except:

- Russia asking the US agencies to investigate the older brother as a possible extremist several years ago
- FBI having investigated them before on their own
- The older brother becoming radical in the last couple of years as seen in social media and explained by people that knew him
- Them being on the place where the explosion happened
- Video showing them putting the backpacks down and leaving
- A man who had his legs blow off acting as a witness and helping law enforcement find them
- Them killing a police officer
- hijacking a car and running away (unlike other photo suspects that gave themselves in)
- Unfinished explosives found in their house
- Them shooting at the police, as well as throwing explosives at the police
- Older brother having explosives strapped to his body
- Probably lots of stuff that isn't public

So pretty vague at this point. If anything they should let him go until they have more info.

[Sykol]

No proof whatsoever, except:

- Russia asking the US agencies to investigated the older brother as a possible extremist
- FBI having investigated them before on their own
- The older brother becoming radical in the last couple of years as seen in social media and explained by people that knew him
- Them being on the place where the explosion happened
- Video showing them putting the backpacks down and leaving
- A man who had his legs blow off acting as a witness and helping law enforcement find them
- Them killing a police officer
- Unfinished explosives found in their house
- Them escaping and shooting at the police, as well as throwing explosives at the police
- Probably lots of stuff that isn't public

So pretty vague at this point. If anything they should let him go until they have more info.

Inconclusive. Not guilty!

[Wildtree]

Oh good grief. John McCain, and Lindsey Graham want to try him as an enemy combatant even though he's an American citizen that spent the latter portion of his life in this country. The younger brother should still be tried in the same manner as any other citizen of this country.

I agree with you, to say that first.
But as a technicality. He is a naturalized citizen. The status can be taken away at any given time when applicable circumstances (severe disregard or breach of the laws) are given. That is given, and they can take the citizenship from him. But that would technically make him a Russian again. Which enables Russia to lay it's protecting hand over him. And since Russians and Americans are still happy to piss at each others leg, where ever they can, I wouldn't rule that out.
I rather suspect him to get trialed as an American. After the verdict they likely open another trial at the immigration courts, and the citizenship gets revoked there and then.

---------- Post added 2013-04-20 at 03:32 PM ----------

Use your brains guys..... Can you not see behind the demand/request or what ever you want to call it that?

Obama got under fire by those very politicians for having the military pursuing and killing the Terrorist offshore, despite him being an American Citizen. that the guy ran around like an arab, dressed like one, looked like one, and believed in the same extremist ideologies did not matter to the critics. It was a left wing President, and it's the right wing nuts duty to piss on his leg....
And that's exactly why they want the same now to happen to the Boston suspect. Cheap shot payback attempt..
It's just too obvious to me... Don't bullshit the bullshitter..

[ringpriest]

I agree with you, to say that first.
But as a technicality. He is a naturalized citizen. The status can be taken away at any given time when applicable circumstances (severe disregard or breach of the laws) are given. That is given, and they can take the citizenship from him.

Umm, not really. You're pretty far off base here. A naturalized citizen is just like any other citizen of the United States. It's not a status that can be "taken away" even for breaking the law. While there are certain circumstances where U.S. citizenship can be lost, they all involve either active and willing renunciation of U.S. citizen status or as a result of criminal actions either after a trial that finds someone guilty of treason or after an investigation that determines the person in question lied about prior convictions for grave crimes (Nazis who committed crimes against humanity in every case I'm aware of) in order to obtain citizenship. So, yes, technically you can lose your citizenship for treason or lying about wars crimes, those are far more than just breaking the law. And in both cases, you would still get a trial first, unless you were already a convicted war criminal.

Where did you get the idea that citizenship can be "taken away" prior to trial?

[Wildtree]

There is a treasure of evidence in their apartments as well a duplicate of the bomb used at the bombing. That's not good evidence?

As well as the fact that the confessed to being the boston bombers to the carjacking victim before setting him free.

Watch it.. I tend to believe this information too.
But facts are facts. Unfortunately or not...
Both these statements are not officially confirmed by authorities via press conference or what ever else legal paperwork released.
These are things that have been reported to us by the media. And the very media definitely delivered a multitude of false messages and facts, that turned out later for being not true.
I don't think anyone in here wants to protect the suspect, or even advocates for his freedom.
The debate only goes on here, because many of us just don't want to jump to verdict and conclusion without confirmed evidence and trial. On the other hand we have those who'd be more than willing to simply lynch the guy, with no facts at hand other than media reports.
I think there is a very good reason why the authorities called that guy a suspect, up until now. No one ever called him or even his brother anything more specific as a suspect. No perpetrator, or anything else along that specific line.
Some in here seem to forget that.
Wild West is over. Lynch mob is illegal nowadays.

---------- Post added 2013-04-20 at 03:52 PM ----------

Umm, not really. You're pretty far off base here. A naturalized citizen is just like any other citizen of the United States. It's not a status that can be "taken away" even for breaking the law. While there are certain circumstances where U.S. citizenship can be lost, they all involve either active and willing renunciation of U.S. citizen status or as a result of criminal actions either after a trial that finds someone guilty of treason or after an investigation that determines the person in question lied about prior convictions for grave crimes (Nazis who committed crimes against humanity in every case I'm aware of) in order to obtain citizenship. So, yes, technically you can lose your citizenship for treason or lying about wars crimes, those are far more than just breaking the law. And in both cases, you would still get a trial first, unless you were already a convicted war criminal.

Where did you get the idea that citizenship can be "taken away" prior to trial?

I stated exactly that....
He will get the criminal trial and after that he will get an immigration court trial...

As for losing citizenship..... Here we go:
The statute reads in relevant part:



TITLE 8--ALIENS AND NATIONALITY

CHAPTER 12--IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY

SUBCHAPTER III--NATIONALITY AND NATURALIZATION

Part III--Loss of Nationality

Sec. 1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized
citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions

(a) A person who is a national of the United States whether by birth
or naturalization, shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing
any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United
States nationality--
(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own
application or upon an application filed by a duly authorized agent,
after having attained the age of eighteen years; or
(2) taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal
declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political
subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen
years; or
(3) entering, or serving in, the armed forces of a foreign state
if (A) such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the
United States, or (B) such persons serve as a commissioned or non-
commissioned officer; or
(4)(A) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any
office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state
or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of
eighteen years if he has or acquires the nationality of such foreign
state; or (B) accepting, serving in, or performing the duties of any
office, post, or employment under the government of a foreign state
or a political subdivision thereof, after attaining the age of
eighteen years for which office, post, or employment an oath,
affirmation, or declaration of allegiance is required; or
(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a
diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign
state, in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State;
or
(6) making in the United States a formal written renunciation of
nationality in such form as may be prescribed by, and before such
officer as may be designated by, the Attorney General, whenever the
United States shall be in a state of war and the Attorney General
shall approve such renunciation as not contrary to the interests of
national defense; or
(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by
force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States,
violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section
2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of
section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by
engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by
force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against
them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a
court of competent jurisdiction.

(b) Whenever the loss of United States nationality is put in issue
in any action or proceeding commenced on or after September 26, 1961
under, or by virtue of, the provisions of this chapter or any other Act,
the burden shall be upon the person or party claiming that such loss
occurred, to establish such claim by a preponderance of the evidence.
Any person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed,
any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any
other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such
presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the
evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done
voluntarily.


Source. knock yourself out in the jungle of the USA immigration laws:
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/browse/collectiontab.action

[belfpala]

...shall lose his nationality by voluntarily performing any of the following acts with the intention of relinquishing United States nationality--...

Bolded to help you out.

[Wildtree]

Bolded to help you out.

Read more...

(7) committing any act of treason against, or attempting by
force to overthrow, or bearing arms against, the United States,
violating or conspiring to violate any of the provisions of section
2383 of title 18, or willfully performing any act in violation of
section 2385 of title 18, or violating section 2384 of title 18 by
engaging in a conspiracy to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by
force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against
them, if and when he is convicted thereof by a court martial or by a
court of competent jurisdiction.

oh here.... Section 2384 Title 18:
If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

[Venant]

What happened with all those people who had their houses forcibly searched? Did anyone refuse to let the police in on the grounds that they didn't have a warrant? I heard that some people were arrested but it seems like this angle was completely ignored by the media. They basically turned a pretty good sized area into a police state for a day and violated the rights of everyone in the area in the pursuit of a single suspect. It just seems like the envelope is being pushed here.

[belfpala]

Read more...

(7) comes after the condition in (a). That would imply the condition applies to all of (1) - (7), no?

[bugzilla3]

Send this guy to Gitmo, find out everything he knows, ship him back to the states, try him as a citizen, death penalty, win.

[Butler to Baby Sloths]

That law means that the treasonous act must have happened with the intent to lose their citizenship, otherwise that clause does not apply.

I also think that you cannot be made stateless under some UN regulation.

---------- Post added 2013-04-20 at 11:14 PM ----------

Send this guy to Gitmo, find out everything he knows, ship him back to the states, try him as a citizen, death penalty, win.

Can't do that without risking the judge having to grant a mistrial and setting the guy free.

[Wildtree]

(7) comes after the condition in (a). That would imply the condition applies to all of (1) - (7), no?

Yes, but what relinquishing means is subject to interpretation of the court and lawyers.... A DA will say he relinquished purposely, because he knew better not to do what he did, and the consequences thereof. Part of the naturalization process is to get informed about the possibility to lose that status again.. As well as for resident aliens getting that information.
That has to be given, or there would be an escape route in case of a trial.
The lawyer of the guy however will fight for no relinquishing happened. But if, what's said and reported is true, then the DA has a better case. if the two guys discredited the USA and it's people with several remarks that's easily usable as evidence.
As it stands and with the whole situation of terrorism as the act of crime, the chances for the guy to lose his citizenship is in my guess at a good 90%.

[Shennanigans]

Yes, but what relinquishing means is subject to interpretation of the court and lawyers.... A DA will say he relinquished purposely, because he knew better not to do what he did, and the consequences thereof. Part of the naturalization process is to get informed about the possibility to lose that status again.. As well as for resident aliens getting that information.
That has to be given, or there would be an escape route in case of a trial.
The lawyer of the guy however will fight for no relinquishing happened. But if, what's said and reported is true, then the DA has a better case. if the two guys discredited the USA and it's people with several remarks that's easily usable as evidence.
As it stands and with the whole situation of terrorism as the act of crime, the chances for the guy to lose his citizenship is in my guess at a good 90%.

Won't happen and I'm 100% sure of that.

[PickleballAce]

Personally that whole treatment disgusts me and everyone is hysterical out there and looking for blood, nothing is gained from that except the notion for terrorists how easy it is to make the US lose their mind and getting terrorized.

Anecdotal is anecdotal but I can say that, living in the Boston area, I felt there was an almost-tangible relief amongst the populace that not only did they catch the suspect, but they caught him alive so we can get some answers. There was some anxiety over him bleeding out before being taken into custody.

Yes, you do get the "drop him off in South Boston" comments but a lot of that is mental masturbation. Not that I'd particularly feel awful about it if that happened either....at least as it relates to the subject's well-being, that is.

[Theinquisition]

That law means that the treasonous act must have happened with the intent to lose their citizenship, otherwise that clause does not apply.

I also think that you cannot be made stateless under some UN regulation.

---------- Post added 2013-04-20 at 11:14 PM ----------



Can't do that without risking the judge having to grant a mistrial and setting the guy free.

Sure let him free.....drop him off in downtown boston with nothing but the clothes on his back and let the public know when and where its happening.

[Wildtree]

That law means that the treasonous act must have happened with the intent to lose their citizenship, otherwise that clause does not apply.

I also think that you cannot be made stateless under some UN regulation.

Okay amongst brothers, since when did the USA worry about UN regulations lately?
Unfortunately, rarely til not at all....
I explained how the intent of losing the citizenship can be applied fairly easy.

[Grizzly Willy]

Sure let him free.....drop him off in downtown boston with nothing but the clothes on his back and let the public know when and where its happening.

Good thing vigilantism is illegal.

[Theinquisition]

Okay amongst brothers, since when did the USA worry about UN regulations lately?
Unfortunately, rarely til not at all....
I explained how the intent of losing the citizenship can be applied fairly easy.

Since when does UN regulations overrule Our own laws?

Shit considering we provide the majority of funding to the U.N. they should kiss our ass.

---------- Post added 2013-04-20 at 03:22 PM ----------

Good thing vigilantism is illegal.

Sure its illegal...without a doubt.

I'm sure that as a white guy if I was walking through downtown Boston in a bad neighboorhood things may happen to me which I would not like. Why not him?