Re: The Bigger, Badder, Even More Serious Thread [3]

[Eldorion]

As I pointed out in an earlier post, the US media does not refer to these attacks as involving WMDs. It's strictly used by the legal system -- and thus in reports about the trial -- but not in general coverage of attacks. For as reprehensible as the media circus over the past week has been, I haven't seen any use of the term "weapons of mass destruction" outside of its very specific legal definition, because the rest of the time the media uses the same definition as everyone else.

[Pettytyrant101]

the US media does not refer to these attacks as involving WMDs.- Eldo

Boston Teen charged with using WMD- CNN headline

The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings is charged in hospital with using a weapon of mass destruction.
- BBC news headline*

Granted they refer to 'charged' but even so this is the only time in my life I have ever seen such an attack reported with such headlines about WMD in the media.



* I love how the BBC dont use acronymns in their headlines- thats standards that is.

[Eldorion]

Boston Teen charged with using WMD- CNN headline

The surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings is charged in hospital with using a weapon of mass destruction.
- BBC news headline

Uh, did you read past the first sentence of my post, where I qualify it by noting that the media have used the phrase WMD only in reference to the specific charges filed? You know, exactly the same as the BBC did.

Granted they refer to 'charged' but even so this is the only time in my life I have ever seen such an attack reported with such headlines about WMD in the media.

If you followed the reports of legal action taken against previous (attempted) bombers, you would have come across this use of the phrase WMDs years ago. All of these were found on the first page of Google results for "[name of attack] charges filed".

Attempted Times Square bombing (took place in 2010)
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/06/21/new.york.times.square.bomb/index.html

Attempted plane "underwear" bombing (took place in 2009)
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/12/underwear-bomber-pleads-guilty-in-trial/

Attempted plane "shoe" bombing (took place in 2001)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1011199394563964600.html

Would-be "20th hijacker" involved in 9/11
http://www.justice.gov/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

Oklahoma City bombing (took place in 1995)
http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveighindictment.html

[Pettytyrant101]

There is a notable difference between the links you post Eldo and the sort of headlines I have seen today- not one of those links for example mentions WMD in the headline.
The first link for example the only mention of WMD is 3/4 of the way down the page in a paragraph listing charges, quite different from it being the headline.
All those reports are about the legal process in one way or another- not all the reports I have heard or read today have that legal context- sorry it still looks a bit suss to me how its being reported and (seemingly to me) pushed as a WMD attack rather than an oridinary bombing incident.

And whislt media in the US and here seem keen to report every latest twist and turn from Boston there is a lack of mention of say the string of car bombings that ave left over 30 dead in Iraq in the last week or so as they gear up for local elections.
It just seems all wrong.

[David H]

I guess I'm not as troubled by this bit of terminology (which has always been as flexible as the term "terrorist" but does make at least some sense in this context) as I was by the idea that the courts were considering charging the bomber as an enemy combatant.

Enemy of whom? Combating what exactly?

He's a US citizen without even known ties to anybody suspicious, but if he'd been charged as an enemy combatant all of the legal protections on which our courts are based would have been swept aside and he would have gotten tried in military court if he even got a trial at all.

Can you muster a little crabbit for that abuse of language Petty?

[Eldorion]

There is a notable difference between the links you post Eldo and the sort of headlines I have seen today- not one of those links for example mentions WMD in the headline.

...So what? I'm not buying the media sensationalism argument, because the height of sensationalism and fear-mongering has passed now that the bomber has been caught, and no one was using the phrase "WMD" before charges were filed.

And whislt media in the US and here seem keen to report every latest twist and turn from Boston there is a lack of mention of say the string of car bombings that ave left over 30 dead in Iraq in the last week or so as they gear up for local elections.
It just seems all wrong.

Are you surprised? Media in the US (can't speak to Britain as much) are never particularly interested in covering bombings in Iraq or Afghanistan, but especially not when they've got a really big story at home to focus on.

[Eldorion]

I guess I'm not as troubled by this bit of terminology (which has always been as flexible as the term "terrorist" but does make at least some sense in this context) as I was by the idea that the courts were considering charging the bomber as an enemy combatant.

That would have been a slap in the face to everything that the US justice system stands for, so I'm very glad that he is being tried through the civilian courts. I'm not sure that anyone in a relevant position of authority was thinking about classifying him as an enemy combatant, though. I know there were a handful of conservative Senators and pundits making noise about it, but the U.S. prosecutor seems to have been involved with this case from the beginning based on her statements at the press conference on Friday.

[Pettytyrant101]

Actuallly David I was going to vent some crabbit on that once Id finsihed with the WMD farce.

And yes it was worrying, but I was slightly consolled by the calls for it coming from the 'usual supects' more than anyone with any actual influence.
Fortunetly it seems this will not be the case, although I do understand he was not read his rights bfore being questioned- which seems a bit off as it contains the bit about using your own words against you in court.

I think the more horrible and atrocious the charge the more important it is the Law should be very careful to do eveything it can to stop any possible accusations or appearences of not playing it straight down the middle.


Simu-post Eldo!

[David H]

....although I do understand he was not read his rights bfore being questioned- which seems a bit off as it contains the bit about using your own words against you in court.

I think the more horrible and atrocious the charge the more important it is the Law should be very careful to do eveything it can to stop any possible accusations or appearences of not playing it straight down the middle.

I agree with that last 100%. Most people who resort to terrorism or public suicide to make a point do so from a sense that they have no other way to get a fair hearing. The last thing a society should want to do is prove them right and make martyrs of them.

As for the Miranda Rights not being read, I think that's kind of a moot point. at the time this discussion was happening he was heavily sedated and unable to speak because of his mouth wound. I heard earlier today that he was informed of his rights, and that all of his responses so far have been nods or shakes of the head.

I actually would understand if they'd asked some limited questions about the existence of other bombs or bombers as soon as possible without informing him, knowing that any information would be inadmissible in court but might nevertheless have saved lives.

[Eldorion]

I actually would understand if they'd asked some limited questions about the existence of other bombs or bombers as soon as possible without informing him, knowing that any information would be inadmissible in court but might nevertheless have saved lives.

That's basically the point of the public safety exception. The point of Miranda, the Supreme Court case, is that any statement given by a suspect who has not been informed of his rights cannot be used in a court of law. The public safety exception means that the police can question a suspect without informing them of their rights and without losing the ability to use said statements in court if there is reason to believe that the public or the police are in imminent danger (in this case, the risk that there are other bombs or bombers out there, I assume).

If the public safety exception did not exist the police would still be able to ask Tsarnaev about other bombs without informing him of his rights, but nothing he said during that interrogation could be used in court. The exception only holds for a short period of time, which is why he's had his rights read to him now. The FBI website has a really long and thorough explanation of all this if anyone's interested.

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

[David H]

Thanks for that Eldo. I'd never seen that formally stated before. It seems like a very well reasoned place to draw the arbitrary line between personal rights and public safety.

[Eldorion]

No problem, Dave. I think that the Boston aftermath has really gone to show how far the federal law enforcement community has come since the 1990s, where you had stuff like Ruby Ridge and Waco. Terrorist attacks are always a game-changer to some extent and some people are willing to start trampling over personal rights, but I think the handling of the Boston case so far has been very respectful of rights while recognizing that not all of them are absolute under extraordinary circumstances. What I'm most pleased by is the speedy return to normalcy we're seeing.

That's not to say that I think everything is perfectly fine in this country as far as respect for rights and liberties go, but I've taken some encouragement from the handling of this investigation. I guess I'm just an optimist.

[David H]

I guess I'm just an optimist.

Does your optimism extend to DoS?

[Eldorion]

I'm probably just being slow because it's 1 AM here, but what do you mean by DoS?

[David H]

Desolation of Smaug. I am in the right forum still, aren't I?

[Eldorion]

Yeah, my mind was just on politics and legal stuff so I wasn't sure if you meant "Department of State" or ... I need to go to bed.

Curiously though, rather than being especially optimistic or pessimistic about The Hobbit, I seem to have fallen into a state of relative disinterest in it. I'm sure this will change when we're closer to the film's release date but for now it's honestly not on my mind all that much. Fortunately there's plenty of other things to talk about here.

[David H]

Yeah, if you've got no other business than this, you really ought to get some sleep. I'm just hanging out here while I wait for various documents to download.

I'm not at the apathy point for DoS yet. More like an uncomfortable balance between hope and dread. If Weta can give us a Smaug that is truly magnificent, and Freeman is allowed to deliver dialog that's halfway close to what's written in Inside Information, I'm telling myself I can close my eyes for the rest of the movie if necessary and still be satisfied.

[Pettytyrant101]

What I'm most pleased by is the speedy return to normalcy we're seeing.- Eldo

That isnt necessary a good sign. I have noticed a weird echo.
The Uk went through a lengthy period with the IRA and whenever anything went horrible and exploded and there were deaths and maimings the press wopuld trot out the old- everyone pulling together, community blitz spirit.
Then this week on US news I've heard a lot about 9/11 spirit in the same vein.
A lot of stuff but how the people wont be cowed and how they all pull together ect ect.

These are the symptoms of a country which expects this sort of thing to become a horrible punctuation mark in future years for a long time to come. So the powers that be try to normalise as much as possible and emmphasis virtues coming out of it.

Out of all the stuff I saw on US news since Boston this aspect I found most depressing.

[Mrs Figg]

personally I think the semantics attached to the words WMD is pretty important, there seems to be a kneejerk reaction that accuses the US gvt of underhand or hyperbolic Language in these situations. The point is that the public are justified in being afraid and nervous, and the gvt in these situations carefully use words to convey to everyone, including future terrorists that things are under control and that the US gvt has the peoples safety in hand. A weak and wimpy response is not a good thing, so any strong worded language is probably the most effective method. Its also a message to any sleeper cells that the gvt means buisness.

[chris63]

http://storylineblog.com/2010/03/25/the-single-most-powerful-question-you-can-ask/

[Pettytyrant101]

Yesterday local councils all over England went to the polls to elect members.
Labour won the most seats, Toris came second, Lib dems fourth- all three main parties lost votes to the party who came third- UKIP.

For those who have never heard of them UKIP stands for the United Kingdom Independence Party. It started out as a protest party against the European Union and the UK's membership of it and it stood in European Elections.
Now it has shown itself to be capable of reaching far beyond a one policy party vote with these results.
Although they wont form a majority on any council to have so many councillors elected to local councils, hardly connected to europe in any political sense, they are unlikely to stay a one platform party for much longer.
Their new councillors will need policies on everything from planning to streetlights.

Cameron only last year dismissed UKIP as a party of "clowns, loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists"
And now quite a lot of them are councillors- we better hope Cameron was wrong about that description. Especially as the party leader Farage has admitted they feilded so many more councillors than normal that they did not vet many of them at all.

This is UKIPS immigration policy- arguably their centre platform in these elections-

IMMIGRATION: An end to the age of "mass uncontrolled immigration". It wants a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement - and any future migration must be strictly limited to those who can "clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy". Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years. In order to achieve these goals Britain would have to leave the EU because there are no restrictions on other EU citizens moving to the UK while it remains a member.

And this is their defence policy (much lesser known I suspect)-

DEFENCE: According to a recent policy paper, UKIP wouldincrease defence spending back to 2010 levels. It would build more warships and carry out an urgent review of the case for replacing Trident, including the option of a new British-built nuclear missile system capable of launch from air, sea or sub-surface vessels.

And on the environment-

ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: UKIP is sceptical about the existence of man-made climate change and would scrap all subsidies for renewable energy. It would also cancel all wind farm developments.
Instead, it backs the expansion of shale gas extraction, or fracking, and a mass programme of nuclear power stations.

And heres how they think best to deal with crime-

LAW AND ORDER: UKIP would double prison places and protect "frontline" policing to enforce "zero tolerance" of crime.

And on how to sort the economy-

THE ECONOMY: UKIP is proposing "tens of billions" of tax cuts and had set out £77bn of cuts to public expenditure to deal with the deficit.

-all info from the BBC


England- you are starting to worry me a bit now.

[azriel]

YOUR worried, IM worried !
Ive got a feeling we are heading for dangerous times, embroiled in a political war that is just gonna get worse. Its to much like a child custody battle between 2 bad tempered divorcing parents ! People think things are bad now ? Its gonna get a lot more nasty than this.

[Ally]

I wonder how well the Green Party who still have more councilers than UKIP and more MPs would have done if they'd had the same constant and inescapable news coverage as UKIP (who have no MPs).

[Pettytyrant101]

Good question Ally. UKIP certainly got the coverage.
I suppose the difference beween the two is that the Greens are no longer taking seats from the main parties, and particularly not those in government.
So there is no news narraitive to follow. And it seems these days what news we get depends on how good a story it makes rather than anything else.

[chris63]

This incredible photo marks the end of Matador Torero Álvaro Múnera’s career. He collapsed in remorse mid-fight when he realized he was having to prompt this otherwise gentle beast to fight. He went on to become an avid opponent of bullfights. Even grievously wounded by picadors, he did not attack this man.

Torrero Munera is quoted as saying of this moment: “And suddenly, I looked at the bull. He had this innocence that all animals have in their eyes, and he looked at me with this pleading. It was like a cry for justice, deep down inside of me. I describe it as being like a prayer - because if one confesses, it is hoped, that one is forgiven. I felt like the worst shit on earth.”