Torture Suggested for Boston Bombing Suspect

dzhokharFBIEarlier today, a state senator in New York echoed a not-unique sentiment on Twitter about the Boston bombing suspect who’s in custody, that he ought to be tortured.

The politics of torture, perfected over thousands of years of human cruelty, is also American contemporary. Just today, Steve Chapman explained here at Reason how many Americans remain blissfully unaware of the U.S’s very recent (and maybe even contemporaneous) torture policies. Undoubtedly, however, the presence of torture in the government’s counterterrorism toolbox went a long way in bringing the widely condemned practice of torture back to American political discourse.

Slavoj Zizek warned of the consequences of this in a 2007 New York Times op-ed:

It is as if not only the terrorists themselves, but also the fight against them, now has to proceed in a gray zone of legality. We thus have de facto “legal” and “illegal” criminals: those who are to be treated with legal procedures (using lawyers and the like), and those who are outside legality, subject to military tribunals or seemingly endless incarceration.

Mr. [Khalid Sheik] Mohammed has become what the Italian political philosopher Giorgio Agamben calls “homo sacer”: a creature legally dead while biologically still alive. And he’s not the only one living in an in-between world. The American authorities who deal with detainees have become a sort of counterpart to homo sacer: acting as a legal power, they operate in an empty space that is sustained by the law and yet not regulated by the rule of law.

Some don’t find this troubling. The realistic counterargument goes: The war on terrorism is dirty, one is put in situations where the lives of thousands may depend on information we can get from our prisoners, and one must take extreme steps. As Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School puts it: “I’m not in favor of torture, but if you’re going to have it, it should damn well have court approval.” Well, if this is “honesty,” I think I’ll stick with hypocrisy.

Yes, most of us can imagine a singular situation in which we might resort to torture — to save a loved one from immediate, unspeakable harm perhaps. I can. In such a case, however, it is crucial that I do not elevate this desperate choice into a universal principle. In the unavoidable brutal urgency of the moment, I should simply do it. But it cannot become an acceptable standard; I must retain the proper sense of the horror of what I did. And when torture becomes just another in the list of counterterrorism techniques, all sense of horror is lost.

And then eventually you get U.S. senators openly calling to strip a U.S. citizen of his constitutional rights.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    In fairness can anything suggested by a New York Senator be taken seriously? I suppose if you polled people who live in dumpsters and talk to themselves all day you would get some interesting answers. But you wouldn't call them suggestions.

  • UnCivilServant||

    If the speaker can be described as a "New York [Political Office]" feel free to ignore every ignorant thing that spills from their empty heads. If it's not about stealing money for their own pockets or trying to stomp out free will, they know nothing about it.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Why are you insulting dumpster dwellers by comparing them to NY state legislators?

  • some guy||

    Indeed. Dumpster dwellers rarely rob anyone. Politicians are constantly robbing everyone.

  • anon||

    can anything suggested by a New York Senator be taken seriously? I suppose if you polled people who live in dumpsters

    Why do you repeat yourself?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Actually, they tend to live in New York City... oh... nevermind.

  • Almanian!||

    THAT'LL LEARN 'IM!

    Fucking idiots.

  • ||

    Wait, what? They're calling for torture now? Well, it's good that another mask has slipped, I suppose.

  • some guy||

    This particular NY State Senator is a Republican. I'm sure he's always been for torturing suspects.

  • Hyperion||

    There are no Republican Senators from NY. You meant that Democrat in GOP clothing?

  • ||

    I just assumed that's what they meant by enemy combatant anyway...

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Torture, real or not, will be a boon for this kid's future lecture circuit and book tour. Not to mention filling a good portion of the courses he will be teaching after that PhD in social work gets rubber-stamped.

  • $park¥||

    But it cannot become an acceptable standard; I must retain the proper sense of the horror of what I did. And when torture becomes just another in the list of counterterrorism techniques, all sense of horror is lost.

    Torture is fine and dandy as long as you still think of it as icky.

  • DWC||

    Missed the point. If you are Jack Bauer and you find yourself in a position where you have to cut someone's fingers off to abort an impending detonation of a dirty bomb in Times Square you do it and you accept the responsibility and consequences for doing it. This is completely different from making torture accepted legal policy and writing it into law. If I were put in such a position I would do it with full knowledge that I would and should face legal sanction for it.

  • $park¥||

    Missed the point.

    Don't bet on it. Somebody fetch me the heretic's fork.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    By all means, let Congress debate whether to amend the anti-torture statute to allow torture when "we really need it, or when we don't like the suspect." Let members of Congress go on record, not pass the buck to the executive. Let us know which of our representatives and Senators want to authorize torture.

  • UnCivilServant||

    The worse irony is that Sen Ball voted against the "SAFE Act" and vocally complained about not having enough time to even read it. I am disappointed now.

  • Tim||

    Tonight we're gonna party like it's 1399.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Let us be fair to our medieval forbears - they would allow torture of citizens only with court approval, based on a prior hearing to establish what we would call probable cause.

    The current "patriot" would just leave it to the executive to decide when torture is OK.

  • ||

    If they torture him, I can only think it would be just for the hell of it, since they have a mountain of evidence. Which makes anyone suggesting this a sick psycho fuck.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "If they torture him, I can only think it would be just for the hell of it, since they have a mountain of evidence."

    Not disagreeing with your conclusion, but evidence that he was a perpetrator of a bombing probably wouldn't be the reason to "torture" the suspect.

  • sarcasmic||

    The purpose of torturing him would be to get him to admit to having ties to AQ so as to justify treating him as an enemy combatant and having an excuse to torture him.

    So yeah. Just for the hell of it is about right.

  • CatoTheElder||

    "And then eventually you get U.S. senators openly calling to strip a U.S. citizen of his constitutional rights."

    When are you people finally going to recognize that the Constitution is a dead letter?

    Didn't you see any of the video coverage of Boston last week? Did the cops and military forces behave in the manner of a constitutional republic, or a police state?

    The government just lets you pretend that you have "rights" unless and until they become inconvenient. FYTW.

  • sarcasmic||

    Exactly.

  • Zeb||

    So, just give up then?

  • CatoTheElder||

    Pretty much.

    I don't have any statistics but, from what I've seen and heard, the vast majority of Americans approve of Friday's lockdown in Boston. And most approve of treating alleged (emphasis on alleged) terrorists as sub-humans.

    A political solution with such a sheepish, statist-indoctrinated population is hopeless.

    Life is better just to maintain low profile, to seek individual freedom despite living in an unfree country.

  • $park¥||

    "The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. If you try it, you will be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself."

  • CatoTheElder||

    Old Fred has some interesting aphorisms, doesn't he?

  • $park¥||

    He sure does. To be sure, he has some bizarre ones as well.

  • CatoTheElder||

    True dat.

  • dalewalt||

    My wife and I were discussing this yesterday evening. In the abstract, conducting house to house searches would be justified.

    But if push came to shove, what right would they have in entering my house w/o my consent? They can't say their in pursuit of a felon, as they would have no indication he was actually *in* my house.

    Was martial law declared? Did that give them 'justification'?

  • dalewalt||

    they're

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    Did that give them 'justification'?

    What gave them the 'justification' is FYTW. Conducting house to house searches WITHOUT a warrant would not be justified. Sorry, but the constitution protects you (theoretically) against this kind of action from the government.

  • dalewalt||

    I hear you, but what I wanted to know was if they had *legal* justification. So if they wanted to search my house, would I be legally justified in saying no?

    I'm sure they'd probably bust in anyway, and perhaps even charge me with something like interfering with an investigation.

    But from a legal standpoint; could they legally come into my home even if I refuse? (in a situation like what happened Thursday/Friday)

  • Ptah-Hotep||

    But from a legal standpoint; could they legally come into my home even if I refuse? (in a situation like what happened Thursday/Friday)

    Constitutionally - No, not without a warrant. But putting your hope that the government will abide by that old, oddly written document is a fool's choice. As CatoTheElder said, they have the brute force and the firepower; you don't.

  • ||

    Although it should be noted that a number of folks around here tweeted out that they were not asked to allow their houses to be searched. The cops knocked, asked if there were any areas they (residents) wanted the cops to look at, and moved on. So you could say "no".

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Tell that to the people who had their doors kicked in after refusing to comply.

  • sarcasmic||

    But from a legal standpoint; could they legally come into my home even if I refuse?

    I believe the Supreme Nazgul has said that the cops can do any illegal thing that they want to you, and it is your duty to submit or you get what's coming to you. Then when it's all over you can try to do something about it in court, assuming you are independently wealthy since things like this can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars or more to litigate.

  • CatoTheElder||

    "what right would they have in entering my house w/o my consent?"

    FYTW.

    They have the brute force and firepower; you don't. Resistance is futile. So is any appeal to their humanity, or to the dead letter of a Constitution.

  • CatoTheElder||

    "if push came to shove"

    From the video footage I saw, there wouldn't have been a shove. The cops and troops were in full-Dorner intimidation mode. The "pusher" would have been shot.

  • dalewalt||

    I wouldn't be surprised if that's the case. And I certainly wouldn't want to get into a full-blown confrontation with them; with the mood everybody seemed to be in, I most likely would've had my ass shot off.

    But, depending on the circumstances, I may do something like telling them they don't have my permission to enter, then try to raise Cain about it afterwards (but not physically resist)

  • Hyperion||

    Has Graham and McCain joined in with this idiot yet? I'm surprised that it isn't one of them who initiated this sort of talk.

  • Tim||

    +1 Scary old man

  • Azathoth!!||

    McCain? Really? Do you live under a rock? McCain is vehenmently anti-torture, having been tortured himself.

  • ||

    What the hell is going on? The entire fucking country has gone completely infuckingsane.

    Torture?

    Suspend constitutional rights for American citizens?

    Perhaps it's time to let it slide into oblivion and start over.

  • Hyperion||

    Perhaps it's time to let it slide into oblivion and start over.

    Let it? I'm not sure there is anything we can do to stop it. The proglodytes and Neocons are working tirelessly towards that very goal.

  • anon||

    We're rapidly approaching "Peak Derp." The end is nigh.

  • DWC||

    You do recall that this is the same country that put 100,000 or so of its own citizens in concentration camps? That along with countless other abominations.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Well it DID happen in the land of Puritans and Ivy Leaguers. You expected actual enlightenment?

  • anon||

    Cool, torturing US Citizens is on the table now.

    How long until we get our own Auschwitz?

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    Hmm, whatchoo mean WE?

  • Pro Libertate||

    Cardinal Ximinez: Cardinal Fang! Fetch... the Comfy Chair!

    [crashing dramatic chord]

    Cardinal Fang: [horrified] The Comfy Chair?

    [Fang scuttles off, then returns with the Comfy Chair and sits the old lady down in it]

    Cardinal Ximinez: Now, you will sit in this chair until lunchtime, with nothing but a cup of coffee at 11!

  • ||

  • John||

    They are living up to the dangers of torture. The problem with embracing torture is that people never know when to stop. What starts as "we will only torture when it is a mastermind and there is a ticking bomb" quickly becomes torturing a lot of people because everyone thinks their case and their suspect is the biggest thing ever.

    Originally torture was sold as something that might be necessary to stop 9-11 type attacks or worse. Well that is a fair and debatable point as far as it goes. But here we have a case where the worst thing this group, if there is one, is capable of doing is planting a few IEDs. We are not even close to 9-11 let alone nukes or biological attacks. And yet, people want to torture this guy.

  • Virginian||

    It's almost like the slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy at all.

  • John||

    It is not a fallacy at all. The slippery slope is not a certainty. You don't always have to fall down it if you are willing to draw lines and live by them. But sadly, we are rarely able to do that.

  • anon||

    The slippery slope is not a certainty.

    I disagree because entropy, in short.

  • John||

    If it were a certainty, you couldn't do anything. Every precedent can be abused.

  • anon||

    Longer explanation: In my experience (completely anecdotal), every "slippery slope" scenario constantly moves towards 1, never back towards zero, and never remains in its current state. You can provide a million examples where the slippery slope argument has been used and is correct; I'm unaware of a single time where someone's warned of a possible consequence of some inane law and that consequence did not come to pass.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    The really bizarre part is --- he's already "talking".
    http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_new.....tions?lite
    Why does he require torturing? Just to get some licks in? Revenge?

  • ||

    That was my point above. If they torture him, it would just be for sheer psychotic pleasure.

  • Zeb||

    Revenge?

    That'd be my guess.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Not surprising that he's talking, even without a deal removing the needle. I'm pretty sure that the Feds could find on each of his relatives, one of the three felonies a day we all commit.

    Plus, maybe he wants to talk? Fully embrace martyrdom?

  • Pro Libertate||

    It's not so much a slippery slope as it is a ratchet that only goes up.

  • anon||

    What starts as "we will only torture when it is a mastermind and there is a ticking bomb"

    I'm actually pretty surprised (yet happy) to see you state this John.

    Once you only start torturing people because you believe there's a "ticking bomb" somewhere, you start to think there are a lot more "ticking bombs."

  • John||

    I have always said that. I saw that in the military. I did dentition operations. And I can tell you, every intel guy thought this guy was the key to the whole damn war. Of course almost none of them knew anything. But they always were sure of it.

    Here is the thing about the ticking time bomb scenario. If it really is that, then have the moral courage to do what you need to do and live with the consequences. If you torture someone and as a result of that you really do save thousands of lives, I doubt you will face many consequences for it and even if you do, oh well. Some people have to get blown up in service of their country, you really can't complain if you maybe have to go to jail in service of your country.

    And that has always been the case in the past. We have always in extreme circumstances embraced extreme measures. We have just never officially endorsed it. Not endorsing it doesn't mean that the guy who tortures someone and saves a city or finds the bomb or whatever goes to jail. It just means if someone does something like that they better be right and it better have been a really extreme circumstance.

    Embracing such tactics officially is just another example of what a cowardly society we have become. They want it embraced officially because they don't want to be held responsible if they get it wrong.

  • anon||

    Well, not only that, but if there really is a "ticking bomb," the guy you're torturing probably doesn't have to hold out very long, which negates the entire purpose of torturing him to start with.

    Granted, I've never been tortured nor witnessed it. I do know however that if I had the conviction to be willing to kill people, I could misdirect or withstand long enough to complete my "mission."

  • John||

    That is another good point. It is very rare that there is a situation where torture will actually work.

    The idiotic thing about it is that with the lone exception of KSM, they didn't need to torture. Our enemies assumed we would, so the threat of it was very effective. If they had been smart, they would have said nothing one way or another and let our enemies continue to believe that. But instead, they made a big deal about it and then had to admit that they didn't do it very often and walk back on even that and the threat was no longer any good.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Did any of them whip out their ID card and demand Geneva Convention category III accommodations and privileges?

  • John||

    No

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    I keep trying to tell people that our foes do not respect the Geneva Conventions. This seals it.

  • Tim||

    "Let's strip his citizenship!"
    "Let's hold him as an enemy combatant!"
    "Let's torture him!"

    And they says Islam is stuck in the past.

  • Virginian||

    Something dumber than this idiotic torture request happened today.

    I was told to open a package of office supplies mailed from the supplier, and put them away in the supply closet. What was in there?

    Why, just 40 boxes of diskettes. 3.5 mm diskettes. Newly purchased in 2013. So now I'm just wondering if this is bureaucratic inertia or if someone is getting paid off to keep ordering them.

  • anon||

    Hey, at least they weren't 5.25".

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Color me surprised they weren't 8".

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    did they come with extra labels? I always ran out of labels.

  • Sevo||

    "or if someone is getting paid off to keep ordering them."

    Well, someone's getting paid to sell them.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah I'm thinking there is a kickback involved. No one knows what they're used for. Literally. Cannot find any kind of documentation or reasoning for buying them. They just buy them because they've done it for the last two decades.

  • sarcasmic||

    I doubt there's a kickback. It's probably the case that the order is decided by committee, and some moron on the committee thinks 3.5s are still useful.

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and check down near the bottom and see if there's any 8-tracks.

  • UnCivilServant||

    3.5mm diskettes? Wow, we here at the State of New York have to get by with 3.5 inch disks. It's just about the only storage they'll let us buy, because it's "office supplies" instead of "capital investment". Things must be more advanced down Virginia way.

  • sarcasmic||

    You work in government, right? Well, there's your answer.

  • ||

    WTF? Where would you even be able to buy those nowadays?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Imation.

    At least that's what the boxes by me read. There's going to be manufacturers as long as there are buyers.

  • Hyperion||

    You can still buy them. Why, I don't know.

    Considering that you can buy a 32G thumb drive for the same price as a box of a hundred of them, I don't have any idea how you can sell them, or why anyone would purchase them.

    I haven't even seen a computer that has one of the drives in years.

    At a former employer of mine, they had a couple of old relics working in accounting who were still clinging to their typewriters. One of them had a safe with a bunch of, I kid you not, 8" floppy disk with 'important' data on them.

  • $park¥||

    Our engineering department has a half dozen meters with 3.5" drives because the people in charge were too cheap to buy new ones with USB ports.

  • Hyperion||

    Around 20 years ago when I built my first PC, a 386, I worked with an engineer who said he would never use a computer. He only needed his trusty slide rule.

    A couple of months went by and he asked me to help him build a computer. I couldn't get him to go with the 20 meg hard drive, because he said that no one would ever be able to fill up a 10 meg drive. He wasn't a real visionary to say the least.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    Was his name Bill Gates?

  • T||

    I have a 3.5" floppy drive that hooks up to a USB port. Someday, when I have nothing better to do with my time, I'll go through all my old floppies and see what's on them.

    So, basically never, but I hold out hope for winning the lottery and being unemployed with plenty of free time.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    Remember ye olde days when you could fit the latest game on 1-5 3.5 mm diskettes?

  • Paul.||

    OT:

    Reese witherspoon and her husband always drive drunk in a hybrid, because they care about the planet.

    http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/21/.....?hpt=hp_c4

  • Sevo||

  • John||

    For once I would have been rooting for the cop to taz her. Yeah, that is bad but I can't help it.

  • ||

    What has she ever done to you?

  • Harvard||

    Reason #52,646 why I wouldn't even consider visiting New York, much less living there.

  • anon||

    I've lived there; believe me, you aren't missing anything.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Good, you're smarter than most people I have to deal with. They constantly complain about this that and the other, but when asked why they don't move, mumble something inchoerent and try to change the topic. I'm still in the "secure a job in a new location" phase of departure.

  • Almanian!||

    But I have on good authority that you cannot have an opinion - especially critical - of NY if you don't live there. Cause you don't live there - and "it's a little more complex than [town you live in]."

    From an [ex] statist friend recently....

    They love them some submission to gummint.

    DROP TO 32 OUNCER AND TAKE THREE STEPS BACK!!!

  • UnCivilServant||

    I do live here and let me tell you - there's nothing complex about New York (state). We've got a boil desperatly needing to be lanced filled with all the stupid flushed down the Hudson over the years, but it's reached a mas where it's numbers can dictate terms to the rest of the state. Someone needs to help us drain New York City.

  • GILMORE||

    Peter King, Long Island's most vociferous Big Government GOP'r.

  • GILMORE||

    Almanian!| 4.22.13 @ 1:38PM |#

    But I have on good authority that you cannot have an opinion - especially critical - of NY if you don't live there...

    Look, I don't give a shit what anybody really thinks, but that's besides the point =

    Peter King is a douchebag from *Long Island*. You can resume your knee-jerk NYC-hate now... just wanted to clarify.

  • ||

    "Listen kid, I'm not gonna bullshit you, all right? I don't give a good fuck what you know, or don't know, but I'm gonna torture you anyway, regardless. Not to get information. It's amusing, to me, to torture a cop Muslim. You can say anything you want cause I've heard it all before. All you can do is pray for a quick death, which you ain't gonna get."

  • sarcasmic||

    Bombers didn't have valid gun licenses!

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....HB20130421

    But, but, but...

  • ||

    NO WAI!

  • Sevo||

    But the new licenses have photo ID! That would have stopped them from bombing!

  • Jordan||

  • Almanian!||

    "Impenetrable Shield of Apathy" for the fuck yeah WIN!

  • Invisible Finger||

    This is a nice propaganda job by the anti-gun nuts. Not too long before anyone possessing a gun without a valid "gun license" will be stripped of their citzenship.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    But you aren't allowed to shot people without a license!

  • sarcasmic||

    But you aren't allowed to shot people without a license badge!

  • Russell||

    If Alan Dershowitz perseveres, we may one day see him cop an "I was only following court orders " plea.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    I can hear that time bomb ticking from here.

  • thom||

    The great unspoken issue here is that it doesn't seem like this kid is particularly dangerous on his own or knows anything about future terrorist activity. The government has operated thus far and is moving forward as if this 19 year old kid who obviously idolized his brother is some sort of international terrorist mastermind, even though there doesn't seem to be any evidence of that. Americans, in general, seem willing to go along with this. It's really strange, and it's really concerning. I've never really seen anything like it.

  • John||

    Of course they are. Their big case at GUITMO was the fucking chauffeur. There are very few terrorist masterminds. And the ones there are generally don't put themselves in any danger. They depend on losers like this kid to do that. You are not going to catch the head guy with a bomb in his hand anymore than you are going to catch a Mafia don smuggling drugs or actually running numbers.

  • thom||

    Ok, but in this case it seems like trying to catch the Mafia don by picking up kids smoking joints at a local high school. You could torture that kid all day and he would never give you anything useful.

    If there is any relationship at all between this kid and international terrorism, then it seems like our massive bureaucracy set up to battle international terrorism is having a hard time finding it.

  • John||

    The connection was with the brother and the crazy female they caught. The bombs were apparently pretty professionally made. He learned that somewhere. But it seems like it was the brother who had all of the connections. He is the one who went back to Russia. I doubt this kid knows anything.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Ok, but in this case it seems like trying to catch the Mafia don by picking up kids smoking joints at a local high school."

    Really. Killing random people at a sporting event is just like smoking a joint at a high school?

  • $park¥||

    Killing random people at a sporting event is just like smoking a joint at a high school?

    You're not real good with analogies, are you?

  • Jordan||

    Well, hey we just put one hysterical overreaction to bed (the Newtown gun control laws), time for the next round! Perpetual fear is what politician's crave.

  • Jordan||

    Delete that apostrophe.

  • ||

    Your sins are forgiven.

  • T||

    So, perpetual fear is in Brawndo?

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "The great unspoken issue here is that it doesn't seem like this kid is particularly dangerous on his own"

    He placed a bomb in a crowd of people with the intention of killing most of them if possible. Supporting his rights is one thing. Making excuses for what he did is ridiculous. And yes, I'm not qualified to be on the jury. I think he did it.

    http://blog.beliefnet.com/watc.....icture.jpg

  • John||

    He needs to be thrown in prison and the key needs to be lost. But he is not some kind of terrorist mastermind.

  • thom||

    Key words are "on his own". It's telling that the moment the older brother died, the violence basically came to a halt.

  • John||

    Tough shit. He still needs never to live a free day in his life again.

  • thom||

    I'm generally ok with that. (Although in 30 or 40 years I'll probably be ok with letting this guy out of prison too).

  • Gray Ghost||

    His victims are still dead, last I checked. I've no problem with giving him the needle, provided his guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. But then I suspect my views on capital punishment are different than many of the posters here.

    That said, the way he's going to dodge the needle is by having his attys point out what thom's saying and more: I didn't do it, it was all big bro., I was scared, I stopped shooting as soon as he died, here's everything I know, etc...

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "Key words are 'on his own'. It's telling that the moment the older brother died, the violence basically came to a halt."

    So, the older brother being influenced by some bat-shit insane Imama somewhere gives him an excuse also. And the violence didn't come to a halt. He fired at police while in the boat up until the point he shot himself in the mouth.

  • Zeb||

    It's probably true. That in no way excuses or mitigates what he did.

  • C. S. P. Schofield||

    I'm all for it! Strap him to a chair, and force him to watch congressional hearings on torture, until he breaks.

  • Almanian!||

    *shudder*

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Bombers didn't have valid gun licenses!

    You know who else doesn't have a gun license?

  • UnCivilServant||

    Me?

  • Almanian!||

    My dogs?

  • T||

    People who live in states freer than MA?

  • Invisible Finger||

    We thus have de facto “legal” and “illegal” criminals: those who are to be treated with legal procedures (using lawyers and the like), and those who are outside legality, subject to military tribunals or seemingly endless incarceration.

    We've always had those two types: the suspects the government has an airtight case against and the suspects in which the government's case is filled with reasonable doubt.

    And you can usually tell which is which: the more over-the-top the government's reaction is, the more likely the case is falling apart.

  • I Dug It||

  • dalewalt||

    Send him to Coventry

  • ||

    A NY Senator openly calling for torture in this case? Amazing. Just amazing.

    And in regards to the other thread, there isn't even evidence to consider this nimrod an enemy combatant. This should be treated as the domestic crime it is. The cops did their (good) job in getting the guy into custody and into the court system - now, let's let the court system do it's job and go for a conviction. This is a crime, not an act of war as far as the evidence goes.

    I agree with everything in John's above post btw about ticking time bomb.

  • thom||

    That said, there are a lot of angles from which a good defense attorney could work this case. The obvious being "my brother made me do it", or even, "I was trying to stop my brother".

    It's too bad that the cops couldn't have just choked back their blood lust and not killed the older brother.

    Now we'll probably never know what this was actually all about.

  • ||

    Im not seeing blood lust in the killing of the older brother. From what I have seen he was killed justifiably in a conflict with the cops who certainly would have preferred taking him into custody alive

  • $park¥||

    certainly would have preferred taking him into custody alive

    Which they proved by filling him with so many bullets that the doctors stopped counting.

  • ||

    which doesn't negate what i said. When presented with deadly force, they responded. It doesn't mean they wouldn't have preferred to take him into custody alive. It just means they weren't willing to die in doing so. Good for them. No cops died.

  • $park¥||

    It just means they weren't willing to die in doing so

    It means taking him in alive was probably one of those annoying thoughts that flits around in the back of their minds that they did their absolute best to ignore. I wouldn't be surprised if one of them had even said "too bad we couldn't take him in alive."

  • Gray Ghost||

    How funny. I didn't read your post at 1:27 before posting mine, above.

    Seriously though, at least the older brother was throwing lead at the cops. Both of them were, probably. It's hardly blood lust to shoot back, or to try and stop a pair of armed carjackers to begin with.

    Until we get a TOS phaser set to stun, there isn't any other way to stop somebody bound to shoot at you, than to shoot at them. Would you have preferred Cambridge PD let them go?

  • ||

    That's because a United States Citizen cannot be treated as an enemy combatant.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Actually, it's probably a pretty bad job by the law enforcement up and down the line.

    By treating it as OMIGOD THE WORLD'S GOING TO END instead of the domestic crime it actually was, they wound up killing their best chance at finding about any other associates or further plots.

    If the police would have been cold and calculating they would have had these guys without panic by now. Certainly the lockdown was the stupidest thing, as they got nowhere with it. As soon as the stupid lockdown was ended, a citizen found the guy in 10 minutes.

    I'd also add that the FBI probably created a jihadist via the previous interrogation. And it was done at the request of Russia, that bastion of liberty. Now that a two-bit bombing can panic an entire city for a week, we have ensured more such events.

  • ||

    I disagree, but we've hashed over this endlessly in another thread. You can apply results analysis instead of process analysis to the lockdown, but what the cops did worked. The got the guy to run to ground and he was contained in the area. And then an alert resident tipped them off and they caught him.

  • John||

    It didn't work. The guy broke the perimeter and hid. They locked the area down and couldn't find him. Had the area not been locked down, someone would have seen him. They only found him after they had given up the search and lifted the lock down and some guy walked out to check out his boat.

    The capture of these guys was a failure at every level. They failed to capture the most important one of them alive. They fucked up the initial capture causing a shootout and letting one of them escape getting extremely lucky he didn't harm anyone else.

    The entire operation from the moment they figured out who these guys were and where they were was one monumental fuckup after another.

  • sarcasmic||

    Don't forget the expense of having thousands of cops on overtime. That alone had to have cost millions of dollars.

  • ||

    so what? Seriously, the whinging is amazing. It was a successful operation. That's how it's being viewed and that's how history will view it. You guys can wank all you want.

    That's the reality

  • sarcasmic||

    so what?

    It's fun to spend other peoples' money.

  • ||

    Bloomberg Business estimates it cost $333M to shut down the city for the day.

    But hey, money is no object, when it comes to officer safety.

  • ||

    Utter rubbish. Again, classic 20/20 hindsight.

  • John||

    Was the guy not lose for 12 hours? Was he not found by a home owner after the lockdown was lifted?\

    The entire operation in Boston was a disgrace. It was just embarrassing. Terrible planning and even worse execution. Once you know where the guys are, you have at a minimum the duty to ensure they never leave there unless they are in custody. Their incompetence endangered the lives of hundreds of people.

  • tarran||

    BTW, if I were a terrorist bent on mayhem, the use of the Watertown parking mall, about 200 yards from the scene of the original gunfight, as the police marshaling point would make a very attractive target for mortar rounds.

    20 mortars fired over 5 minutes would I think do the trick. Particularly when Deval Patrick was giving his briefing, and everyone was focused on him and the cameras were rolling live.

  • John||

    We are very fortunate in our enemies. The way to do it is have two cells. One sell that pulls off a bombing like the Boston marathon bombing and then a second cell that strikes after the police go completely apeshit going after the first cell.

  • UnCivilServant||

    Has letting the police riot all over town ever given good results if your objective wasn't to terrorize the populace?

  • tarran||

    The entire operation from the moment they figured out who these guys were and where they were was one monumental fuckup after another.

    Not to mention the fucking spray and pray gunfire.

    Incidentally, there is a lovely prison in Concord which has at its disposal a special breed of dog known as bloodhounds.

    These bloodhounds could have tracked a blood trail quite easily.

    However, given the number of cops blundering about, any trail was long overwritten by the time the morning rolled around.

    And, if he hadn't been weakened by blood loss, the fact he made it across Walnut street implies that he could have made it across Mount Auburn St. There are a warren of back roads north and west of his capture point that can pop one out about 2 miles from either route 9, route 20 or route 2, giving you a wide range of options to head out of town. Had he stolen a car during the lockdown, there are good odds that he would have had the better part of a day to make it to Worcester, steal another car, and off he goes.

  • John||

    And at that point, he probably would have stolen the car by killing the occupant and taken it. It is hard to imagine a more dangerous and desperate fugitive than this guy. Allowing him to break that perimeter is about the most rank bit of incompetence I have ever seen. It would have been one thing if this were a bunch of small town cops. But this was the entire weight of both federal and state law enforcement. And they still couldn't do anything right.

    They capture much more dangerous people than this in Iraq and Afghanistan all of the time. Setting up a perimeter and capturing someone alive is basically what infantry does for a living in an insurgency. It is not like this stuff is impossible. If a capture in Afghanistan went this badly, some commanders would be being relived instead of getting medals.

  • tarran||

    The big question in my mind is why that neighborhood.

    It's possible that they were headed west on Arsenal with the law in hot pursuit, saw the flashing lights ahead, turned right onto school street, saw more flashing lights ahead, and took their first right onto Dexter.

    Or it's possible that they were on their way to meet with someone there. The uncle claims an Armenian convert to Islam was the guy who convinced the older brother to go wrong. And that is the big Armenian enclave in Boston. When I was a kid it was effectively a no-go area for me (there was an Armenian terrorist ring led by a local professor killing Turks).

    This is going to be very interesting when the books come out in a few years.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yup.

  • John||

    The Famous But Incompetants were not the ones who captured the guys. It was the local cops. And they aren't not big on subtlety. Once they figured out where these guys were, they should have surrounded the area and waited. Try to get them by surprise outside of their apartment. Busting into the apartment was the dumbest thing they could have done for the reasons you mention. Do that and you end up with a shootout and the potential of killing both of them. You want them alive.

  • ||

    I love all the 20/20 hindsight and all the certainty about stuff like "busting into the apartment was the dumbest thing..." bla bla.

    It's easy to say in retrospect, regardless most people myself included think the cops did a good job.

    They got the perps identified and one dead and one in custody and no innocents got hurt.

    It was a good operation on the whole and people can sit here and armchair quarterback with 20/20 hindsight, but that doesn't change what seems clear to me - a good job.

    And if they HAD waited outside the apartment and that had resulted in the bad guys detonating another device or whatever, they'd be criticized for waiting. They made a tactical decision and went in. It is what it is. I give them props, just like (by all appearances with high fives and stuff all around), the cops are appreciated by the people that matter- the residents of the boston area.

    I've participated in plenty of manhunts and it's easy to 20/20 shit after the fact.

  • John||

    They got the perps identified and one dead and one in custody and no innocents got hurt.

    No one got hurt because they got incredibly lucky. They let the guy break the perimeter and run lose for 12 hours or whatever. Just because they got lucky doesn't mean that wasn't a massive fuck up.

    And this is not a typical crime. This is an act of terrorism. Capturing both guys alive so you have some hope of figuring out if they are part of a cell is extremely important. Failing to do that is a huge failure on the cops part.

    You know where the guys are, you have every asset you can possibly want. Yet, they still managed to kill one guy and let the other run lose in a neighborhood for 12 hours. That is pathetic. The cops who did this are not heroes. They are incompetents who screwed the pooch on the most important mission they will ever have.

  • ||

    Lol. Like I said we discussed this endlessly in another thread. You can stick to this narrative. I'll stick to mine. Can't keep rehashing the same arguments.

    In brief, I see what you are doing as 20/20 hindsight where stuff seems obvious in retrospect. The cops couldn't act on that at the time. THey acted on what they knew and imo acted logically and reasonably and what they did worked.

    We can agree to disagree but this has already been argued endlessly.

  • John||

    No dip shit. I am talking about results. Sorry but we are talking about life and death issues here. We don't judge you on how hard you tried. You get judged on your results. And the results here couldn't have been any worse if they had just drone striked the apartment and been done with it. Just what the fuck do we pay cops for if not to capture suspects alive and without endangering the public? Any monkey can go in there and start a fire fight and let one of them run off.

  • Invisible Finger||

    Just what the fuck do we pay cops for if not to capture suspects alive and without endangering the public?

    This is exactly WHY it isn't hindsight.

    The police do not get this hopped up every time a killer is on the loose. But the whole friggin metro was whipped into a frenzy on this and the police, who we (probably wrongly) expect to have cooler heads did not in this instance.

    I used to be more forgiving of the police until an incident happened in my neighborhood a few years ago where police fired off 5 rounds NEXT TO A SCHOOL WITH KIDS IN IT at a gas station WITH CUSTOMERS IN IT and wound up killing an unarmed perp. Yes the police were the only one firing shots at all, and were written up in the local press as heroes. The guy could have easily been trapped less than a minute later with no escape route (he parked in an alley). They were following this guy for two weeks, trying to catch him in the act and they actually DID but needed assistance because the red-handed act was in another jurisdiction and the "new" jurisdiction was all adrenalized while the "old" jurisdiction was calmly trying to corner him in the alley. Any stray bullet hitting a customer or child (remember, the perp did not fire and had no gun nor had ever fired in all his other incidents) and this "hero" would be costing the town millions for a wrongful death.

  • sarcasmic||

    I'm sure that the citizens in the Boston area enjoyed answering the door to find a half dozen cops pointing guns in their faces, ready to kill them on the spot, and being treated as guilty of harboring terrorists until proving their innocence by having their home searched.

    Many people who once trusted the police will now think twice now that they have actually dealt with them.

  • tarran||

    That's why I was keeping my kids indoors. The cops were very belligerently terrified when in contact with the adult citizenry. My house is just under 2000 yards from the capture point, and stray rounds from the cops were the biggest realistic danger.

  • sarcasmic||

    What were people with dogs doing? Letting the animals piss and shit in the house?
    Because I'm sure there was a real danger of being killed for being outdoors and not in a uniform.

  • tarran||

    We put the dog on the run in the morning, but he kept wanting to come back inside without doing his business. He picked up on the fact that the streets were deserted and something was up.

    So I took my son and we walked the dog together in the late afternoon.

    I figured that was the time of least danger, and a father-son pair sauntering with a 40 pound elderly dog would look about as non-targetlike as possible.

    My ex, of course, chose that moment to call me, and she berated me for irresponsibly breaking "martial law".

    Fun times.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "I'd also add that the FBI probably created a jihadist via the previous interrogation."

    Yeah, everyone that gets interrogated by the FBI seems to go out and blow random shit up.

  • John||

    Yeah. How about "The FBI fucked up and missed a jihadist even thought the Russians told them he was dangerous and they interviewed him".

    Some of the things people on here believe...

  • Invisible Finger||

    I won't fault the FBI for "missing" him. I don't believe in arresting and prosecuting someone for his thoughts no matter how bad they are.

    Yeah, everyone that gets interrogated by the FBI seems to go out and blow random shit up.

    Which was not even close to what I said nor implied. That is merely the strawman argument in your own head.

    If Russia and the FBI are watching you, is there anything you can do to get unwatched? We already know how difficult it is to get off a no-fly list. And if one ever had the thought that Russia and the FBI are the enemy, it isn't surprising such interrogations would strengthen one's feelings and possibly make them even more radical. It certainly didn't scare him straight.

    The FBI doesn't need to piss off EVERYONE they interrogate, just a handful is more than enough. Again, I'm not pissed at the FBI for "missing" a jihadist, I'm disgusted at the FBI for being so cooperative with Russia, a country that has NO track record of giving a flying fuck about individual liberty. (And that seemingly had no problem gassing innocents to death to catch a handful of jihadist Chechens.) Just because terrorists provide the ammunition doesn't mean we have to kill our liberty.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    It's almost like the slippery slope fallacy isn't a fallacy at all.

    If only Tulpa were here to refute your pathetic ignorance.

  • SugarFree||

    Didn't he run off like a little bitch?

    "You guys are going to miss me when I'm gone!" said every petulant teenager ever.

  • ||

    Given the number of times I have seen his name in various threads today makes me think some around here would miss him.

  • SugarFree||

    Fun fact: On the thread where he ran off crying about not being appreciated, 20% of the posts were either by him or referenced his name. 20%. And that's still not enough attention for him.

  • $park¥||

    Every hero needs a black knight and for Tulpa there just weren't enough people willing to be his black knight.

  • tarran||

    Way to move the goalposts, sugarfree.

    Most of the posts referring to him by name were not appreciative.

  • SugarFree||

    Negative attention is still attention.

  • sarcasmic||

    Just because his name is synonymous with attacking men of straw and moving the goalposts doesn't mean he's popular.

  • RyanXXX||

    Wait so he actually quit HnR?

  • Aresen||

    And then eventually you get U.S. senators openly calling to strip a U.S. citizen of his constitutional rights.

    Why don't you subject a few US Senators to "enhanced interrogation". I am sure many of them have a lot to confess.

  • I Dug It||

    I'm sure that merely showing them the instruments of torture would be enough to make them confess and implicate every other Congresscritter.

  • Aresen||

    That's only "Second Degree".

  • Almanian!||

    I don't like the smell of piss, so....

  • Hyperion||

    I suggest showing them some buckets of tar beside a few bags of feathers.

  • Zombie Jimbo||

    McCain would just call you a pussy and keep telling you that you're not doing it right. He'd annoy you to death.

  • OldMexican||

    And then eventually you get U.S. senators openly calling to strip a U.S. citizen of his constitutional rights.


    People will jerk-off over anything these days...

    Disgusting.

  • ||

    On Friday I was hanging out in the waiting room watching the news that they'd captured him alive and me and one patient were remarking that we were glad he was taken alive just so he could be debriefed and we could get a better picture of what happened. Another patient cut in angrily "They should've put him down like the dog he is." The first patient and I made horrified faces and said things about due process and police not being judge jury and executioner to which she replied "All he needed was to hear 'bang bang, you're dead'" and then she walked out.

    There are some horrible people wandering around pretending to be human.

  • ||

    There are some horrible people wandering around pretending to be human.

    Some of them are elected NY State Senators.

  • $park¥||

    Pretending? I hate to break it to you, but that behavior is the dominant one in humanity.

  • ||

    Sorry, that's a bit of a holdover from reading Mencius. All humans are homo sapiens, not all homo sapiens are human.

    'When I say that all men have a mind which cannot bear to see the sufferings of others, my meaning may be illustrated thus:-- even now-a-days, if men suddenly see a child about to fall into a well, they will without exception experience a feeling of alarm and distress. They will feel so, not as a ground on which they may gain the favour of the child's parents, nor as a ground on which they may seek the praise of their neighbours and friends, nor from a dislike to the reputation of having been unmoved by such a thing.
  • $park¥||

    Isn't he a Mexican comedian?

  • ||

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    A White House spokesman has said Mr Tsarnaev will not be treated as an "enemy combatant", as suggested by some Republican members of Congress.

  • ||

    Well duh.

  • Aresen||

    However, the WH did not say how they would treat Republican Congresscritters.

  • kinnath||

    We manaaged to convict and execute Tim McVeigh with out turning the justice system inside out.

  • John||

    If the crime is committed on US soil, there is no reason not to treat it as a crime. The reason why you would want to treat some people as enemy combatants is that you may catch people oversees who you know are dangerous but the case against them may be very hard to make under the normal rules of evidence.

    Well that is not a problem when you have them on video tape planting the bombs.

  • tarran||

    I swear that if civilization is to end, this business of substituting emotion for reason is going to be the root cause of it.

  • kinnath||

    If the crime is committed on US soil, there is no reason not to treat it as a crime.

    You know, this should elicit a great big "Duh!" from anyone within earshot. It scares me that we have reached the point where this actually needs to be said often and loudly.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Hell, the FBI captured Ramzi Yusef, who actually was a big time Islamic terrorist (if a bit too devoted to saving money), and we didn't need to shut down the entire city to do it.

    Contrast the behavior of Boston's TPTB during the 1976 Bicentennial bombings with the absolute CF this last week. Fluffy hit it on the head in another thread: this massive show of force will be the standard from now on. Especially since the only people bugged about it seem to be us.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    BREAKING: Marathon bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev charged with using a weapon of mass destruction.
    Charges call for death penalty, but Obama administration has not decided whether to seek death penalty.

  • John||

    Lets go ahead and rape that term as well. We can't charge him with murder because there are no federal murder statutes. And we could never let the states handle this case. No. That might prevent Carmen Ortiz from saving her sorry ass political career.

  • kinnath||

    A black powder bomb ain't no fucking weapon of mass destruction.

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    If they used real dynamite in the same device, like the Croatian terrorists of the 1970s, it still does not get into WMD territory.

  • kinnath||

    WMDs by all reasonable expections are limited to nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons with wide area effects leading to thousands or more casualties.

    A truck full of fertilizer and fuel oil brought down half of a building and was still way less powerful that the conventional weapons used by the USAF.

    The plant in texas that blew up would not count as a WMD.

    I cannot overstate how much I hate the mutherfuckers that equate a black powder bomb with WMDs.

  • T||

    Really? An IED is a weapon of mass destruction?

    Weak sauce.

  • kinnath||

    How is this not a massive insult to the men and women that served and continue to serve in Iraq and Afghanistan?

  • ||

    Well in the case of Iraq, it really does mean MISSION ACCOMPLISHED

  • Austrian Anarchy||

    He also used unlicensed guns. Should make that tenure process go a little quicker.

  • ||

    There's another term that has lost all meaning.

    WMD = chem, nuke, bio and apparently pressure cookers

    Does that mean the military drops WMDs out of airplanes, since apparently all bombs are now WMDs?

    The retard just won't fucking peak.

  • Andrew S.||

    Wait, under this definition, was Dubya actually correct when he said that Iraq had WMDs? My whole feeling on going into that idiotic war may have to change!

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    BREAKING: Terror plot thwarted by joint Cda-US police operation:

  • Pro Libertate||

    Wait, was that a plot to do evil in Canada or here? I mean, who terrorizes Canadians?

  • Nazdrakke||

    The Ottawa Senators?

  • John||

    Notice that the story never mentions why these people are doing this? They don't even say what motivated the Toronto 18. You could excuse not mentioning the motive for this plot because maybe the police haven't said. But we know exactly who the Toronto 18 were and why they were doing what they did.

    Yet, if you read the story you would think random Canucks are deciding to blow shit up because they are angry over the NHL playoffs or something.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    The story says the actual announcement will come later.

  • John||

    I know. But it also mentions the Toronto case from a couple of years ago. But it never mentions just who the Toronto wanna be bombers were.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    "FBI missed Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s Russia trip because of misspelling, Sen. Lindsey Graham says"

    http://www.washingtontimes.com.....misspelli/

  • ||

    I always do soundex and partial name searches on my cases btw for exactly this reason. Even court computers can have names spelled. differently/incorrectly, and it's easy to miss intel because of one letter being misplaced etc. I've seen it time and time again.
    It *is* super easy to miss that stuff.

  • ||

    The ironic thing is I have a defense attorney interview on a homicide in a few hours and I guarantee *i* will not get second guessed 20/20 hindsight'ed (so to speak) half as much on my actions in this case as you guys are with the Boston cops. I may, I'll admit due to my employ, "kneejerk" towards giving the cops praise, but I've looked at the arguments against them in this operation and they seem very facile and based on what we know NOW not what was known at the time. It's easy to say NOW that waiting them out for example would have been a better strategy. Considering what they knew THEN, it's not as easy to say.

    Either way, I respect those that I disagree with.
    Just like I will respect the defense attorney who will conduct the interview on this homicide. I LOVE my job btw. Court testimony is probably my favorite thing of all, which puts me in a tiny minority (most cops hate it). Pre-trial interviews are also super fun!

  • Auric Demonocles||

    The ironic thing is I have a defense attorney interview on a homicide in a few hours and I guarantee *i* will not get second guessed 20/20 hindsight'ed (so to speak) half as much on my actions in this case as you guys are with the Boston cops.

    Do you think this is some sort of 'gotcha'?

  • ||

    Again, I don't have time to wank on this right now, but do I think WHAT is some sort of gotcha? I told you - I think it's easy to 20/20 (trust me *we do it on our ops all the time. We are often our harshest critics. ) hindsight a lot of stuff that seems obvious now but wasn't at the time.

    Either way, I HAVE to be prepared for this case cause it's a homicide and shit so I can't wank right now :(

    I have a rep as always being prepared for court and court interviews and I need to keep it! :)

    A young girl is dead and she deserves justice.

  • Andrew S.||

    IOW: If they say there's an emergency, police are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, and nobody's allowed to question them.

  • ||

    Nobody's saying that. I am saying criticism with the benefit of 20.20 hindsight must be recognized as such. It's easy to see stuff that seems so obvious NOW but wasn't then. THe cops had a dynamic situation, and imo handled it pretty well. Others disagree. Fair enuf. Imo, most people and the historical record will be in accord with what I think.

    The police acted well in this case imo but again I don't have time to wank on it right now. I respect those that disagree with me, as always

  • sarcasmic||

    IOW: If they say there's an emergency, police are allowed to do whatever the hell they want, and nobody's allowed to question them.

    I'm pretty sure the Supreme Nazgul has said as much.

    Cops can do any damn thing that they want, and you damn well submit, or you'll get what's coming to you. Then afterwards, if you are independently wealthy and have nothing but free time, you can hire some lawyers and object in court.

  • sarcasmic||

    *that was supposed to be a reply to Andrew*

  • 0x90||

    Torture works great, because nobody has ever given false information under torture. And if they did, you're in an even better position, because where there may have been doubt previously, the subject now knows for a fact that there's no limit to what you're willing to do, so he has even more motivation to be truthful. It's really a win-win.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    In light of some of the things I've read and heard, the American people don't deserve to be free.

    We've gone from "torture is wrong," to "torture will only be used those EVIL FURRINERS," to "let's torture a US citizen with a FURRINER name, despite having more than enough circumstantial evidence to put him under a prison for the rest of his life."

    300 million fucking people and perhaps, a generous estimate, 5% of them have any interest in liberty or principles.

  • John||

    People have always been vengeful. I doubt any of our forfathers would have had much of a problem with putting this clown on a rack or just hanging him in short order.

    The difference is that there is supposed to be an elite who knows better than the mob. That is what we no longer have.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    People have always been vengeful. I doubt any of our forfathers would have had much of a problem with putting this clown on a rack or just hanging him in short order.

    The difference is that there is supposed to be an elite who knows better than the mob.

    A speedy (and more importantly, thorough) trial and an equally speedy execution (but Mass is not a death penalty state so...prison it is). I have no problem with either one.

    This is the last few embers of idealism in my blackened soul, but I don't believe in an elite. The preservation of liberty is the duty of every free man and woman. Free people do not depend on kings and elites and heroes to keep them free.

  • John||

    The elite isn't the top men. The elite are the few people who realize what is right and stand up to the mob. That is what we are missing.

    We have always had the mob. The country has always been a pretty dangerous and violent one, especially for our enemies. We didn't wipe out the Indians and take over the continent because we were all teary eyed about the sanctity of due process and every human life.

  • Chris Knox||

    Why all this talk about torture? My son broke his arm and they gave him some "interesting" drugs before setting it. While we were waiting the drugs kicked in and he told me all sorts of interesting stuff.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement