Skip to main content

View Diary: Who We Are: The Public Arraignment of the Boston Terror Suspect (276 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the analysis says may be n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  yeah, some random guy from Atlantic says that. (5+ / 0-)

      the statute, though, is clear: it says an explosive bomb is a WMD.  this was pretty clearly a bomb, so its a WMD per the statute.  cut and dried.

      •  both articles point out that there is some (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        JesseCW, chuckvw

        question about the scope of use, but one comes clearly down in your favor. You choose the one that does.

        The time article that you quickly want to use starts with yes, but then points out that in fact there is some debate, but since the law is so rarely used (3 convictions is not a lot so I assume its rarely used) its a question that rarely comes up)

        You can keep asserting, but nothing in either of the articles asserts that the answer is  100 percent. All the one says that you like  says is "almost certain" which is not the same answer it gave when it started with "yes"

        •  No reason he couldn't be charged by the State (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Avila, grover, True North

          as well. As long as the United States isn't charging him with murder, the Commonwealth could very well do so without violating double jeopardy.

          •  Sure, and I don't question that (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            chuckvw, True North

            Just the notion that the fed case is stronger.

             From a legal stand point, I think its slightly weaker if I am understanding the application of the law correctly. No one seems willing to address whether my interpretation is correct or not other than assert I am wrong because the definition is "obvious"

            In fact, the language seems overly broad to me so I looked up the articles to gain a better sense of application which lead me to the view that I have.

            •  I think you're correct. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Avila, polecat

              It isn't as obvious from a legal standpoint that this was a bomb simply because a pressure cooker was used. I supposed the mass-destruction element of the government's case has to do with the inclusion of elements of shrapnel, which serves no other purpose but to kill and maim over a wide area, and the fact that it was deployed in an area where there was a large concentration of people. Now, is this any different from spraying people with a machine gun? If it isn't, then a machine gun is a WMD. (i can hear the gun freaks howing already). That isn't completely clear. I agree.

              •  Did McVeigh get charged similarly or was his (0+ / 0-)

                strictly the murder of so many people ?  I do not know why, but I keep thinking the bomb played a role in his charges or I may be mistaken. ???

                Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

                by wishingwell on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:52:22 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chuckvw, wishingwell


                  THat case seems factually different from the case at hand including some questions of mitigation like defendant's age, the  fact whether he was or was nto the ring leader, his statements not , so far being clearly political like mcveigh, etc.  ON top of that the  question marks over whether its a WMD to me seems like a case for life imprisonment, but who knows given the politics what will happen. The Miranda incident and the GOP among other issues tell me that facts and legal analysis may not mattter here.

                •  It was his accomplice Nicholas . . . (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  who convicted federally with a life sentence. OK wanted to try him for Murder in order to impose Capital Punishment. While he was convicted of murder, the jury deadlocked and couldn't impose the Death Penalty. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

              •  I think the politics of this will determine out (0+ / 0-)

                come more than the legal analysis unless you get a particularly independent minded judge

                Otherwise,  you will get "analysis" like some of which you see here which say it doesn't matter what the law says that he's charged with.

              •  Obvious difference between bomb (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                and gun is that a person can set a bomb, or several bombs and then get out of the's not so easy to operate a machine gun remotely, a shooter has to be present.  But using the term "weapon of mass destruction" for either is verbal overkill--don't see why they can't just call it an anti-personnel explosive device or some phrase that adequately describes the thing without making it sound like a nuke.

                "All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out." --I.F. Stone

                by Alice in Florida on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 10:20:55 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  a bomb goes boom, a gun shoots things (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  TheLizardKing, misslegalbeagle

                  when you pull the trigger.  this is not complicated stuff.

                  •  I agree (0+ / 0-)

                    a bomb goes boom, and how the bomb is made doesn't define it half so much as the going boom part.

                    Sometimes people read too much into a word.  If a word is not explicitly defined by the statute, the courts look to the common meaning of a word frst.  I don't think many people are confused by this and would not know it was illegal under that statute to pack a pressure cooker with powder, nails, etc., and rig it with a charge and set it off to go boom.  And that is how the court will look at 'overbroad'.  

              •  so you think there's a question as to whether (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                TheLizardKing, VClib

                he used a bomb?

                I don't think a court will have any doubt that the explosive bomb he used was, as a matter of law, an explosive bomb.

          •  part of this is me trying to think through (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            how strong is the death penalty case is under t he circumstances?

            I don't know, and parrt of that is how strongly one feels the pressure cooker may fit under the definition?

          •  Even if the US could charge him with murder, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger

            the Commonwealth could as well without violating double jeopardy.  It's called the "dual sovereign" theory.

      •  He also writes articles about Michael Bay flicks (0+ / 0-)

        and Reese Witherspoon, so you KNOW he's a good source of hard hitting legal analysis.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site