Boston Marathon Explosions

[Guest fountainhall]

It's obviously way too early to point fingers at the perpetrators of this attack. With the FBI leading the investigation, the suggestion seems to be that it is terrorist-related. Even that is no guarantee that it is an overseas group, though - witness the Omaha bombing!

 

But, yesterday happened to be the Day of Celebration in North Korea for 101st birthday of Kim Il Sung. The world expected something quite major to happen. Nothing did. The present Kim's father was known as the terrorist-in-chief under his own father's rule - sometimes big events, like the bombing in Rangoon in 1983 which left 17 South Korean officials dead; but often much smaller events, like kidnappings undertaken by agents infiltrated into Japan and other countries.

 

Is it entirely fanciful to think the son might have authorised a little plot to detonate two small bombs at one of the USA's most public events?

[Bob]

Is it entirely fanciful to think the son might have authorised a little plot to detonate two small bombs at one of the USA's most public events?

 

So far, yes. Given they've found and disarmed one or two other bombs and given all the information that the bombs, witnesses, security cameras, and whatever may likely provide, my guess is they'll be able to figure out who was responsible.  Let's wait for some of that. 

[Guest fountainhall]

A comment doing the rounds on the internet today makes a rather interesting point - at least to me. How come the 19-year Boston murderer (4 deaths to date?) is accused of using a weapon of mass destruction - a pressure cooker - but charges against the killers in the mass shootings in Aurora (12 dead) and Sandy Hook (27 dead) involve the use of what are essentially machine guns. So, these are not weapons of mass destruction?

 

If the 19-year old is found guilty, he faces the death penalty. If the Sandy Hook killer is found guilty, he gets life imprisonment (probably many times over - for what that is worth) or time in a mental institution!

[Guest scottishguy]

It's tempting to say that to understand it you have to buy into what seems to be the commonly but not universally-held American belief that 'Guns are Good'

 

I think I read that in both the Aurora and Sandy Hook cases all the guns used were legally held - which tells you something in itself. I'm happy to be corrected on that if I'm wrong.

 

Presumably bombs do not fall into the category of being legally-owned or "good" (except of course when the US are officially dropping them on people's heads). So maybe that's a factor, or maybe not.

 

In the specific case of the 19yo alleged bomber - he and his deceased brother have both already demonstrated their willingness to die, therefore (assuming he is found guilty) life imprisonment would seem to me to be a far more severe punishment for him.

 

From what we are hearing (or being fed - I reserve judgement at the moment) it's moslem-inspired and I'd imagine there are considerably fewer than 72 virgins waiting for him in a US jail.

[Bob]

As a simple answer (presuming there are any in this or most cases of this nature), the kid was charged under federal law and that term (weapon of mass destruction) is as found under the federal statute.  The definition includes bombs, grenades, and other things but does not include a gun (i.e., if these two guys shot and killed 50 people with the semi-automatic handguns they had or even if with semi-automatic rifles, they couldn't have been charged even under federal law for causing death using a weapon of mass destruction).  As I understand it, this particular federal phrase turns on the item being used to cause deaths and not the number of deaths that result.

 

I'm doubtful that Massachusetts criminal law (each state has their own criminal statutes) even contains the words "weapon of  mass destruction." 

 

I'd also note, although not directly asked, that federal criminal statutes do at times overlap with the state criminal statutes.  We started out as a country with no "federal crimes" (other than treason and sedition, I think) and there has been a somewhat major expansion of that in the last 100 years (and some of the expansion was for good reason and some of it was, in my view, too much federal meddling).   For example, kidnapping (perhaps due to the Lindbergh case) became a federal crime, bank robberies became a federal crime, etc.  It's somewhat discretionary with the US Attorney as to whether to charge a person in a given case with a federal crime.  And some federal crimes do carry a possible death penalty (whereas, for example, Michigan and probably Massachusetts do not allow capital punishment for any crime).

 

And we have some weird situations too.  The State of Washington legalized possession and use of marijuana but the same acts still violate federal law.  So, theoretically, you can smoke your brains out in Seattle but there technically is the possibility you could end up in federal court charged with a crime.  Not likely but it could happen (and surely will be a complicated legal fight the first time the feds find somebody with a half of ton of pot in Seattle!).   

[Guest fountainhall]

Thanks for outlining the distinctions. But I have a bit of trouble understanding the reasoning. If those two young guys had whipped out automatic rifles or similar weapons and mown down, say, 50+ people to create terror and, as we are now being told, to protect the Muslim religion, they could not be charged with terrorism - only murder, and only then because they used guns rather than pressure cookers packed with ball-bearings. 

 

If a terrorist/murderer's activities crossed state lines, I could understand the FBI's involvement - as with the Unabomber. But when the crime/s is/are contained within one state, who makes the call - state or federal? And is it based solely on the type of weapon used? If they had thrown one hand grenade that did not even go off, would that be a federal crime?

[Bob]

First, as a matter of brief background, what's obviously a "federal" crime is something that involves crossing state lines (i.e., the completed crime occurred in more than one state) and where the act occurred in an outside territory where federal (US) law applies. The more difficult concept - can't blame you for the confusion - is where the entire act occurred only in one state (such as the recent Boston events).

 

The federal government, although an entity of limited jurisdiction, has grown into a rather large and controlling beast over the last couple of centuries.  There is a "commerce clause" in the constitution - which basically states that the federal government has the right to control interstate commerce - and it is normally that clause that the federal government, backed by the Supreme Court, has intruded into damn near everything.  If they can argue that an act affects interstate commerce, then they will argue they have a right to control it.  That's how they can control what happens in a meat packing plant in the middle of Idaho as the plant's products will enter and "affect" interstate commerce (even if those meat products are neither sold, taken, or sold outside Idaho!).

 

Plus, to be frank, the US Congress has somewhat taken the view that they can make anything they want a "federal" crime and it seems they don't even bother trying to justify it constitutionally.  Thus, possession of a tiny bit of pot in Seattle is a federal crime.

 

Sorry for the diversion but, answering directly your question, the federal government makes the call to assert jurisdiction.  That's routinely handled by the local US Attorney who would make the call on his/her own; however, in important or poltically sensitive cases, the local US Attorney might get a call (and orders) from Washington (on the surface, from the US Attorney General's office).  There is no doubt in my mind that the US Attorney in Boston would have asserted jurisdiction here and charged a federal crime; however, there's also no doubt in my mind that Eric Holder had several discussions with Obama about the matter and that his office was heavily involved in suggesting the particular crimes to be charged.

 

And you ask is if (some federal crimes) based on the type of weapon involved.  The answer is generally "yes" to that.  I can actually understand why it's generally not a federal crime to use a gun to commit a crime or to even kill somebody with a gun.  There aren't enough federal district courts let alone prosecutors to handle all the murders and shootings that happen in the "wild west" United States these days. As to your grenade question, I'd think that would meet the definition of a weapon of mass destruction so, yep, that could be charged federally.

 

Does all this make sense?  Just consider the source (i.e, the Senate and the House of Representatives).  Come to think of it, I don't even want to know what was made "illegal" in Alaska during the tenure of the brain trust we know as Sarah Palin! 

[KhorTose]

Thanks for outlining the distinctions. But I have a bit of trouble understanding the reasoning.

Bob has done his usual outstanding job describing the legal framework, but I completely understand why you cannot understand the reasoning.  Like many things in government it took a long time and a very twisted path to get to this definition starting in 1961.  Here is the very good background article that I found when I was arguing gun laws with you that gives the history and the reasoning for the present definition.

 

http://www.ndu.edu/press/lib/pdf/CSWMD-OccasionalPapers/CSWMD_OccationalPaper-8.pdf

[Bob]

Gun laws?  Just for Khun Khortose's benefit, we ought to ask the mods to get us some emoticons that look like bullet holes!  (just kidding, Khun Charlton.....whoops, meant Khun Khortose).  And could there possibly be an emoticon of mass destruction? 

[Guest fountainhall]

 

Here's a few bullets - 

 

 

 

and, going back a bit in time, a few holes!

 

[KhorTose]

Don't get me started or I will point out how people not pressure cookers kill.

[TotallyOz]

Interesting that no place in Mass will take his body for burial. I have never heard of that happening in the USA.

 

http://www.npr.org/2013/05/06/181678766/in-boston-a-rare-rejection-of-the-dead

[Bob]

So his burial plot won't become a problem (either by causing problems for the graveyard or because it might attract like weirdos), perhaps they ought to bury him at sea.  Osama could use the company.

[TotallyOz]

I'd say ship him back to Russia. Or, better yet just cremate him. Why does anyone want to be buried anyway. I find it horrible. I want ashes made of my body and spread around Sunee Plaza with the Barny Army drinking happily to my demise.

[NIrishGuy]

Islam forbids cremation it seems so that's a big no no apparently.

[kokopelli]

I'd say ship him back to Russia. Or, better yet just cremate him. Why does anyone want to be buried anyway. I find it horrible. I want ashes made of my body and spread around Sunee Plaza with the Barny Army drinking happily to my demise.

Haven't you heard? The Barmy Army disbanded subsequent to the passing of LMTU. However if you provide a bottle of Dom Perignon I will be happy to drink to you either dead or alive.

[TotallyOz]

Haven't you heard? The Barmy Army disbanded subsequent to the passing of LMTU. However if you provide a bottle of Dom Perignon I will be happy to drink to you either dead or alive.

Would you be OK with a cup of hot water? You can bring your own tea bag and put in it to save money. jk

 

hehe

 

I hope someone toasts me with a bottle of Dom. But, I am one of those cheap charlies. When I die, I'm taking it all with me!