The answer is absolutely not. Here is the complaint that is the basis for the Federal charges that was posted on the DOJ website. It states that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev violated two federal laws:
- 18 U.S.C. s 2332a(a) - Use of a Weapon of Mass Destruction
- 18 U.S.C. s 844(i) - Malicious Destruction of Property Resulting in Death
Both laws include the possibility of the death penalty, but only the first is related to terrorism. The second law relates to bombings at sites which affects international or interstate commerce. Yes, it is the commerce clause of the Constitution which gives the Federal government jurisdiction in this case. The complaint filed at the DOJ goes to great length in describing how the bombing at the Boston Marathon disrupted commerce. A terrorist connection is not needed for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to get the death penalty.
The complaint also answers another question we had at our meeting. It states that at lest one person was killed from each of the two bombs. We now know that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was directly responsible for at least one of the four deaths that resulted from this tragedy and its aftermath.
The uncle of one of these men (I forget which) described him as a loser--must have been the older one. This ties in with an email I received recently postulating that the reason individuals, and countries, do things such as this is because they feel disrespected and want to make an impact. I think this makes tome. I will ask Mike to forward this email to the group to see if you agree. Dory
ReplyDeleteIf a person/country feels disrespected to the degree that a response is necessary why should the response be an act of violence rather than an act which engenders respect? What element of society respects violence against vulnerable civilians? To me it is despicable and cowardly.
ReplyDeleteI can understand the need to make your enemies fear/respect you but that is done by taking actions that a show you are an opponent to be reckoned with. I just don't get it.
It seems that "respect" is tied in, especially perhaps as pertains to countries or political entitles, with power, as well as with individuals. The U.S. commands respect because of its overwhelming military power, not because it is any proponent of human rights or international law, even though it does at times pretend to this. Weak countries which have been the target of this "power" want to make a statement, but don't have the power to do so in any legitimate way. They either seek ways to gain power (e.g., N.Korea or Iran getting the bomb), or they sponsor things which might be termed either terrorism, guerrilla warfare, or freedom fighting, depending on the eye of the beholder. Please don't construe anything I have said as sanctioning what happened in Boston, or any similar thing. I'm just saying that there could be things we could do which would make such "acting out" things unimaginable. Dory
ReplyDeletePlacing a label (freedom fighter, guerilla fighter, etc) on something does give it legitimacy. In my mind if you attack unarmed civilians you are a terrorist. If a group has a grievance against the government but doesn't have the power or influence to modify the government's behavior it isn't okay to sponsor or just start killing civilians, including women, children, first responders, etc. Some people who started with no power became powerful and influential though actions that did not include anything remotely like terrorism, e.g. MLK, Nelson Mandela, Gandhi.
DeleteYour last sentence suggests there could be things we could do to make terrorism unimaginable. How do we get radicals to stop preaching hatred and promoting acts of violence that result in a reward in the next life?
It would have been so preferable to have taken the suspect alive and uninjured to facilitate interrogation. Today's Post says that he was unarmed. The police fired many shots assuming he was. Once he was cornered in the boat, it would have been so much better to have waited, keeping him surrounded, until some stun flares could have arrived. The many excuses for the police behavior was that they assumed he was armed - but still no reason to storm the boat until cooler heads arrived.
ReplyDeleteNorm, do you grant that there could be such a thing as State terrorism, which can wreak far more havoc on innocent people than can individuals with relatively little power. A prime example of state terrorism (aside from the drones which the US admits causes a lot of collateral damage) is the state of Israel. The stateless Palestinians are totally at Israel's mercy, and Israel has not failed to take advantage of this. The use of weaponry which most of the international community calls illegal (cluster bombs, napalm, white phosphorus, etc.) on a people without the wherewithal to fight back certainly causes terror among the people being killed and maimed, as thousands of Gazans can attest to. Actually, Israel may have been the initiator of terrorism in modern times. At the time of its inception, Israel used terrorism to get rid of the British and many Palestinians; i.e, the bombing of the King David Hotel, the bombing of bridges, the wholesale destruction of Palestinian villages, the massacre at Deir Yassin and other Palestinian villages, the assassination of Count Folke Bernadotte, the assassination of Lord Moyne, . . . Shamir and others were pleased to call this freedom fighting. As I say, it's all in the eye of the beholder. As for what we could do to make terrorism unimaginable, I would suggest a follow-through on the speech which Obama gave in Cairo at the beginning of his presidency (showing respect), which he has totally backed off from (as he has done with most of his ideas). Dory
ReplyDelete