Islamist Terrorism in the West

[Bill77]

What do you suggest would have been a better response to this threat,
considering 3 people lost their lives and over one hundred were injured.
You've questioned the FBI's initial handling of the investigation into the older Tsarnaev's activities and associations after the tip off from a Russian intelligence service, insinuating that more could have been done and yet the complete lockdown in Watertown that led to a quick capture of the alleged bomber was too much for your liking.

I don't get it.

I think I'd appreciate such a strong police presence in my town if an unknown number of crazy mothefuckers were on the loose with IED's and armed to the teeth.

+1.............

[vicsinad]

What do you suggest would have been a better response to this threat,
considering 3 people lost their lives and over one hundred were injured.
You've questioned the FBI's initial handling of the investigation into the older Tsarnaev's activities and associations after the tip off from a Russian intelligence service, insinuating that more could have been done and yet the complete lockdown in Watertown that led to a quick capture of the alleged bomber was too much for your liking.

I don't get it.

I think I'd appreciate such a strong police presence in my town if an unknown number of crazy mothefuckers were on the loose with IED's and armed to the teeth.

What do you mean by "better" response? One that will lead to a safer society? One that will lead to a society with its liberties intact? Or one that respects a balance between the two?

First, there are already an unknown number of "crazy motherfuckers" on the streets armed to the teeth. Where's the manhunts to stop serial killers and serial rapists? Where's the manhunts to stop gang-bangers from terrorizing inner city populations? How about the child-molesters? How about the corporate and banker scum who scheme people out of their life savings and homes? This filth wreaks havoc on many inner-cities and other people in general, and the only government response is, "call us if you're a victim of a crime." But with heavy police action to stop terrorism that's not legally defined as terrorism, they could make our streets pretty darn safe. But they don't -- because their actions are political. Do you know how many terrorist actions, or bigger criminal actions, that have happened in the past on US soil where the man was on the loose but the manhunt didn't proceed as such? Many. And you can't say, "but you don't know when the terrorist will strike next...the people are afraid." Yes, which is illogical because way more people are going to die in the next few days by a random mugging, gang shooting, convenience store robbery, or some other crime.


I get it-- people are told to be scared because a random terrorist event might happen. A lot of them want the police presence (that's why, even though I found it odd, they were chanting "USA, USA" when a home-grown terrorist was captured). But I don't find the police actions legal in some cases, unwelcome by home dwellers, yet still searching their homes. Why? Because there's a criminal on the loose? So what -- now it's up to the government to decide when the Constitution does and doesn't apply and they can shut down a city and do warrant-less searches based on the fact that their is a criminal on the lose? What are the consequences -- to what kind of criminal action will they extend this to next? The legal and social consequences are enormous.

People are slowly sacrificing their liberties for safety -- and if you want to do that, you can go right ahead. But while we have them, there are still laws and procedures to follow. We weren't in a state of war, but the government acted like we were and masqueraded around like they were searching for the Nazi army. And some people still like their rights and liberties, and also believe the government has its limits, even if they are promoting safety. The Patriot Act make us safer...and that POS legislation has eroded our liberties. People are fine with it -- I'm not.

And questioning the FBI for how they handled an investigation is not the same. It was more about whether they were incompetent or not, and whether it was purposeful or not. I'm not questioning the competency of the Boston Police, the Mass Police or the FBI in finding the suspect. I'm not questioning how they missed the bomb when they had such a heavy police and contracted security presence at the finish line -- crime happens. I'm questioning the legality and the potential social consequences, along with the legal consequences.

[Phoenix]

Vic, I'm not sure what you want.

I don't undestand your fears and I don't see any loss of liberty...all I see is another kooky conspiracy theorist.

I'll give you some advice, keep your nose clean and you won't have anything to fear from 'Big Brother'...and when the cops come banging on the door searching for any motherfucker harming innocent people, let them in, offer them a cup of coffee and some hospitality and thank them that somebody actually gives a fuck about your safety.

[vicsinad]

Vic, I'm not sure what you want.

I don't undestand your fears and I don't see any loss of liberty...all I see is another kooky conspiracy theorist.

I'll give you some advice, keep your nose clean and you won't have anything to fear from 'Big Brother'...and when the cops come banging on the door searching for any motherfucker harming innocent people, let them in, offer them a cup of coffee and some hospitality and thank them that somebody actually gives a fuck about your safety.

Please enlighten me as to the conspiracy theory that I'm advocating.


Amendment 4 of the US Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where was the warrant, stating probable cause, signed by a judge, stating the suspect was in any particular house? Why were random people being searched and patted down on their own streets? Because there was a suspicion that the suspect was in the town? So now, whenever there is a criminal in your town, the government has the right to pat you down and search your house...because a dangerous criminal in your town?

Again, why not do this for other criminals and suspects? Why isn't "BIG BROTHER" looking out for other citizens and potential victims when it comes to all other crimes?

We have a constitution that safeguards rights and liberties for a reason that we the people need to keep in check and uphold. That's why we have organizations like the ACLU. So we don't go back to the 1940s and throw all American citizens of Japanese descent in jail because of their ethnic origin. So we don't go back to a time before the 1960s where it was a crime to have sex with, or marry, someone of the negro race. So we don't have the NSA listening into our phone conversations whenever they want, without a warrant. So we don't have to go back to 1995 when the US wiretapped conversations between attornies and theirs clients and use that as evidence, which is a blatant disrespect for attorney-client privilege?

Back then, same arguments were being made that you're making now: let the government do its thing, we know better for you then you know better for you.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's advocating for liberty. I've let cops into my house on occasions...that has nothing to do with warrant-less searches and pat-downs without probable cause.

[Phoenix]

Please enlighten me as to the conspiracy theory that I'm advocating.


Amendment 4 of the US Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Where was the warrant, stating probable cause, signed by a judge, stating the suspect was in any particular house? Why were random people being searched and patted down on their own streets? Because there was a suspicion that the suspect was in the town? So now, whenever there is a criminal in your town, the government has the right to pat you down and search your house...because a dangerous criminal in your town?

Again, why not do this for other criminals and suspects? Why isn't "BIG BROTHER" looking out for other citizens and potential victims when it comes to all other crimes?

We have a constitution that safeguards rights and liberties for a reason that we the people need to keep in check and uphold. That's why we have organizations like the ACLU. So we don't go back to the 1940s and throw all American citizens of Japanese descent in jail because of their ethnic origin. So we don't go back to a time before the 1960s where it was a crime to have sex with, or marry, someone of the negro race. So we don't have the NSA listening into our phone conversations whenever they want, without a warrant. So we don't have to go back to 1995 when the US wiretapped conversations between attornies and theirs clients and use that as evidence, which is a blatant disrespect for attorney-client privilege?

Back then, same arguments were being made that you're making now: let the government do its thing, we know better for you then you know better for you.

It's not a conspiracy theory. It's advocating for liberty. I've let cops into my house on occasions...that has nothing to do with warrant-less searches and pat-downs without probable cause.

Vic, surely you're aware of the extraordinary circumstances of the other day.
You still haven't told me what would be an appropriate response to the butchery committed by those chechen motherfuckers, a response that wouldn't infringe on your liberty...God forbid you weren't inconvenienced the other day in the safety and comfort of your own home.

Have some respect for those families that have been destroyed by the barbaric actions of two chechen lunatics.

Get off your liberty high horse.

[vicsinad]

You still haven't told me what would be an appropriate response to the butchery committed by those chechen motherfuckers, a response that wouldn't infringe on your liberty

Any response that doesn't include warrant-less searches or pat-downs, and/or orders to stay in or to evacuate your house.

God forbid you weren't inconvenienced the other day in the safety and comfort of your own home.

No, I wasn't. I was 800 miles away.

Have some respect for those families that have been destroyed

I do. What does that have to do with anything? Where did I say anything about the victims, or anything about not finding the suspects?

This is all reminiscent of 2001 9/11 attacks what I heard from many Americans. "You don't support our war in Afghanistan? What about your respect for the victims of 9/11? You're a terrorist sympathizer."

So ridiculous.

two chechen lunatics.

One was an American citizen, here since age 7.

Get off your liberty high horse.

Didn't know there was such a thing?

[Phoenix]

Vic,

One last time. The USA will NEVER be the same after 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings has exposed the insecurities in the American pysche.
The authorities are under extreme pressure to protect the citizens from 'terrorism', especially if there's any truth to the talk of the failings of the FBI to monitor one of the Chechen maniacs.

There's just no possible way that warrants could have been issued for thousands of searches across an entire town in the time of the short and critical operational period.

Successful security (apprehension of the culprits) in this environment is dependent on extremely fast action, getting bogged down in the red tape of court issued search warrants at this time is just as crazy as those 2 chechens.

You're barking up the wrong tree on this one buddy.

[Bill77]

Please enlighten me as to the conspiracy theory that I'm advocating.


Amendment 4 of the US Constitution:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
.

A) searching for some crazy motherfucker who had intentions of killing if not thousands, hundreds

B) risk of this crazy committing further mass killings

C) risk that he might escape for good together with iimportant information that could stop future slaughter of innocent lives

Is this not "reasonable" enough for you champ?

If it only was a shop lifter they were dealing with, I would understand your point.

[vicsinad]

Vic,

One last time. The USA will NEVER be the same after 9/11, the Boston Marathon bombings has exposed the insecurities in the American pysche.
The authorities are under extreme pressure to protect the citizens from 'terrorism', especially if there's any truth to the talk of the failings of the FBI to monitor one of the Chechen maniacs.

There's just no possible way that warrants could have been issued for thousands of searches across an entire town in the time of the short and critical operational period.

Successful security (apprehension of the culprits) in this environment is dependent on extremely fast action, getting bogged down in the red tape of court issued search warrants at this time is just as crazy as those 2 chechens.

You're barking up the wrong tree on this one buddy.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree.

Are you saying that the government can do anything it wants in the name of security? What are you suggesting exactly? For what crimes and suspects can the law enforcement officials cut through the red tape? What makes "terrorism" different than any other murderous criminals on the loose? When does security matter more than liberty? Answer these questions.

[vicsinad]

A) searching for some crazy motherfucker who had intentions of killing if not thousands, hundreds

B) risk of this crazy committing further mass killings

C) risk that he might escape for good together with iimportant information that could stop future slaughter of innocent lives

Is this not "reasonable" enough for you champ?

If it only was a shop lifter they were dealing with, I would understand your point.

If you're that interested in American case law and statutes, read the law that has defined described "unreasonable" in the context of the 4th amendment.

[Gocka]

Very interesting points of view being thrown around here. A few points I'd like to make.

It's quite obvious that you guys don't really like Vic and I think that is showing. Just because you may not like him or agree with everything he might believe doesn't mean everything he says is wrong. I think what he said is quite right.

If Tom had said the same exact thing that Vic is saying you all would have bowed down before him, also I am pretty sure that Tom would agree with what Vic is saying and I'm sure he will chime in very soon and prove my point.

As with the previous topic about Tarculovski, you guys seem to be missing the central point.

We have laws and regulations for a reason, to limit and regulate who has power when and how much so that we do not have gross abuse of any given authority.

What happened in Boston pretty much trampled all over those laws and regulations.

Why is the threat of a terrorist act so much more alarming and worthy than any other threat?

The school shooting in Connecticut killed 26 I repeat 26 kids, little kids. We have daily incidents of gang violence, random murder, and all sorts of other heinous acts.

So a school shooting kills 26 kids from 5-10 years old and the laws on gun control are off limits, but we have 3 people killed in a bombing and it's ok to disregard all protocol and the constitution?

The threat of being killed by a terroristic act is not any greater than being shot while walking down the street in some neighborhoods.
A Macedonian woman I believe from Ohrid was shot in Florida while riding her bike down a street. A bank robbery was occurring and a stray bullet hit her and killed her.

We can go on all day long with examples of violence and death tolls. What freaks you guys out so much that you think that walking all over the constitution is warranted?

Do you have any idea how many suspected murders the police is currently looking for in the USA? If the same treatment was given to all of them the entire country could theoretically be on lockdown.

Also the conspiracy theory comments is unwarranted, given that both Bill and Phoenix have both said things at times which were actually conspiracy theories, this is a matter of legality or illegality.

[TrueMacedonian]

If Tom had said the same exact thing that Vic is saying you all would have bowed down before him,

A little uncalled for don't you think? I have seen Bill and Phoenix disagree with Vangelovski plenty of times. I think this smiley is justified

[TrueMacedonian]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/21/17848814-charges-expected-soon-for-boston-marathon-bombing-suspect?lite

Charges expected soon for Boston Marathon bombing suspect

Federal prosecutors were putting the finishing touches on charges against the surviving marathon bombing suspect on Sunday, even as officials raised questions about the extent to which they may be able to question the surviving suspect.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the 19-year-old man accused in the Boston Marathon bombing that killed three people and injured more than 180 remained in serious condition at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Law enforcement sources said their goal is to file charges against Tsarnaev today.

A senior law enforcement official also confirmed Sunday that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is suffering from a wound to his throat that has left him unable to talk.

This has delayed efforts by the special high value detainee interrogation team to talk to him without advising him of his Miranda rights, the source said. The “public safety exemption” allows investigators to question a suspect when it is thought that he or she might have vital information about a threat against public safety.

Gov. Deval Patrick told reporters Saturday that Tsarnaev was "unable to communicate."

In an interview Sunday, Boston Mayor Thomas Menino said investigators may never be able to orally question Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. “And we don’t know if we’ll ever be able to question the individual,” Menino said without further explanation.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev remained in “serious condition,” the FBI said in a statement released on Sunday at the request of the hospital where a number of bombing victims also have received treatment.

His brother, 26-year-old Tamerlan Tsarnaev, was identified by the FBI as Suspect 1. He was killed in a firefight with police following a wild chase into the suburb of Watertown on Thursday night.

The brothers hurled a pressure-cooker bomb similar to the two that went off at the marathon during the firefight, Watertown Police Chief Edward Deveau said on Saturday. The men were in two cars when confronted by a lone police officer, Deveau said, and later threw four grenade-like explosives at pursuing officers.

Much remained unknown on Sunday about what might have driven the two suspects to violence. The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said on “Meet the Press” on Sunday that Tamerlan Tsarnaev may have traveled under an alias when he took a trip to Russia in 2012.

That trip may have been when Tamerlan Tsarnaev “got that final radicalization to push him to commit acts of violence and where he may have received training,” said committee chair Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich.

Also, crime scene units returned to the scene of Monday’s twin explosions that brought an annual springtime rite to an end in screams and smoke. Debris and trash not far from the bomb site on Boylston Street were taken away in garbage trucks on Sunday after being sifted for evidence.

Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel said he has not seen evidence to link the bombings to any militant or terrorist group on Sunday, and declined to speculate on whether or not Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could be sent to Guantanamo Bay.

“We just don’t have the facts, and until we get the facts, then it will be the responsibility of law enforcement, DOJ, and other institutions to make some determination as to how that individual should be treated, detained, charged, and all that goes with it,” Hagel said. “But right now we just don’t know enough about it.”

Investigators are taking a look at Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s behavior after he returned to the campus of the University of Massachusetts at Dartmouth after the Monday bombings, Gov. Patrick said Sunday on “Meet the Press.”

“There is evidence of some frankly kind of normal student behavior in those ensuing days, which when you consider the enormity of what he was responsible for certainly raises a lot of questions in my mind and as I say more to the point in the minds of law enforcement as well,” Patrick said. “Those are the kinds of leads that still have to be pursued and run to ground.”

In Boston, the hunt for the suspected perpetrators gave way to a time to mourn a week after the attacks. A funeral for marathon victim Krystle Campbell, 29, a restaurant manager, is scheduled for Monday at St. Joseph Church in her home town of Medford, Mass.

Menino and Patrick along with the central charitable One Fund Boston called for a minute of silence at 2:50 p.m. Monday to mark a week since the bombings. Bells will ring throughout the city and Massachusetts after the minute’s passage, according to a statement from the mayor’s office.

One person injured in the marathon blast was released from the hospital on Sunday, though 52 are still receiving treatment in Boston hospitals, with three in critical condition.

About 36,000 runners participated in the London Marathon on Sunday amid heightened security, many of them wearing black ribbons to commemorate the victims in Boston or carrying “For Boston” signs.

[Phoenix]

Vic and Gocka,

Neither of you have yet proposed an alternative course of action that could have resulted in the swift apprehension of the terror suspects.
I give huge credit to the vigilance of the American people and their role in identifying the attackers. I give great credit to the ability of the Americans to throw vast resources at this case and have it essentially closed in a very short time.

I'm not a constitutional law expert, so I'm not going to argue the meaning of words in your constitution or continue this bullshit about how the liberties of you two peanuts were taken away on that day.

Next time your city is terrorized and there's lunatics planting IED's in your backyard and the cops are doing their door knocks and the streets are off limits for your own safety, you go for it... Don't let the cops in and go roam the streets freely and in defiance.

[Gocka]

A little uncalled for don't you think? I have seen Bill and Phoenix disagree with Vangelovski plenty of times. I think this smiley is justified

It was, but I still think it's true. Or at least a bit more tip toeing would have went on.

Vic and Gocka,

Neither of you have yet proposed an alternative course of action that could have resulted in the swift apprehension of the terror suspects.
I give huge credit to the vigilance of the American people and their role in identifying the attackers. I give great credit to the ability of the Americans to throw vast resources at this case and have it essentially closed in a very short time.

I think the mass of police and the ordered shutdown of the city made the effort slower. In the end it was AFTER the order to stay indoors was lifted that the suspect was identified by a common citizen and reported to the authorities.

There is already a course of action specified in our laws. The relevant jurisdictions are outlined as are protocols for operation. There is no need for "special" anything. It's not like an entire foreign army was deployed on our shores.

The key to their apprehension was the viral nature of today's world. As soon as the pictures went public that was the end, regular people had identified who they were just based on who went to school with them and people that knew them. Their hours were numbered after that. There was no need for a mass shutdown and all the door to door searches.

I'm not a constitutional law expert, so I'm not going to argue the meaning of words in your constitution or continue this bullshit about how the liberties of you two peanuts were taken away on that day.

You've taken quite some liberty right there in implying that either one of us had complained that our personal liberties were violated. This isn't about me or him, this is about the law, and the precedence. The reason that we have laws and the constitution is to prevent certain things from happening.

You cannot have laws in place if you plan on saying well in this case they don't count and in that case they do. As soon as you find a reason to violate a given law then anyone in the future can give a similar reason to also violate that law and by the time you're finished the law may become irrelevant because of so many "special" circumstances.

Next time your city is terrorized and there's lunatics planting IED's in your backyard and the cops are doing their door knocks and the streets are off limits for your own safety, you go for it... Don't let the cops in and go roam the streets freely and in defiance.

Here you are using hyperbole and sensationalism to try and drive home a point, but those are exactly the types of actions that are used to violate people's rights. You grab at people's emotions to try and justify something that otherwise would be wrong.

In my opinion the type of mentality you are displaying is typical of Macedonians. The mentality that that laws are meant to be flexible, that they don't always apply to everyone and they certainly don't apply to me. That is why Macedonia is in the sad state that it is. Because laws are not respected nor enforced and that is why corruption and soft crime plague the country.

We have a constitution and laws for a reason. A law is useless if there are going to be exceptions. Would you agree to this? Or do you believe that laws are open to interpretation?

Where is the line?

Who is a terrorist and who is not?

Who needs to be read his Miranda rights and who doesn't?

Who can be searched without a warrant and who can't?

When can the police enter my home and when cant they?

When can I choose to not open my door and when can't I?

When is the constitution valid and when is it suspended?

None of these questions are answered in our constitution, and that is because it is laid out in a manner so that these questions should never be asked, it specifies that the in order to answer any of those questions you must go through legal proceedings and through the relevant channels to prove that you have a legitimate reason for asking any of those questions.

Or do all these questions lay solely with whoever is calling the shots at the moment?

The end cannot be used to justify the means when the scope of what is at stake is so large.