Explosies bij marathon in Boston #46 Zonder complotten

quote:

Speaking out on Wednesday, Mrs Tsarnaev launched into a bizarre rant in which she claimed she would not care if she or her youngest son were killed by U.S. authorities.

'If they are going to kill him, I don't care,' she told CNN of Dzhokhar.

'My oldest one is killed, so I don't care. I don't care is my youngest one is going to be killed today. I want the world to hear this. And I don't care if I am going to get killed too. And I will say Allahu akbar!'

quote:

Op zondag 28 april 2013 20:25 schreef gebrokenglas het volgende:
De vader gaat toch niet naar de U.S., om gezondheidsredenen.

bron: the dailymail

In dat artikel lijkt die moeder echt niet helemaal te sporen:

[..]

quote:

Op vrijdag 26 april 2013 08:24 schreef Individual het volgende:
Ma, de vrijgevochten punk..
[ afbeelding ]
..heeft toch maar besloten een hoofddoek te gaan dragen..
[ afbeelding ]

[..]

http://metro.co.uk/2013/0(...)imes-square-3667481/

quote:

Op zondag 28 april 2013 21:44 schreef Greys het volgende:

[..]

Nou idd, want die vader was toch zo blij dat in elk geval de jongste het had overleefd?
En die moeder interesseert het ineens niet meer?
Ze was er toch van overtuigd dat ie onschuldig is, hoezo maakt het d'r dan niet meer uit?

quote:

Op maandag 29 april 2013 01:27 schreef Insane- het volgende:

[..]

Ouders zijn gescheiden, had te maken met het feit dat de moeder erg radicaal werd en de vader zeer gematigd gelovig was.

quote:

Op maandag 29 april 2013 11:37 schreef Fides het volgende:
http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/(...)g-mensen-onder-puin/

Ben benieuwd hoeveel Amerikanen op Twitter dit een "God's retalliation " vinden op de "Czech Republic":D

quote:

Op maandag 29 april 2013 11:38 schreef meth1745 het volgende:

[..]

Lees de eerste paar zinnen uit de OP nog eens goed door.

quote:

“I know CNN has taken some knocks lately but the fact is, I admire their commitment to covering all sides of the story, just in case one of them happens to be accurate.”

quote:

Op maandag 29 april 2013 12:25 schreef tostitomaatkaas het volgende:
Hoe werkt dat met de doodstraf dan? Dacht dat die niet meer werd gegeven in Massachusetts?

quote:

Op maandag 29 april 2013 12:28 schreef gebrokenglas het volgende:

[..]

Klopt ja. Wordt nog een interessante. Het zou wel kunnen als de federal justice wordt toegepast.
Maar de Obama Administration heeft al gezegd dat de civil justice gebruikt gaat worden, en dus inderdaad geen doodstraf. Tot ongenoegen van de republikeinen.

quote:

Op maandag 29 april 2013 12:28 schreef gebrokenglas het volgende:

[..]

Klopt ja. Wordt nog een interessante. Het zou wel kunnen als de federal justice wordt toegepast.
Maar de Obama Administration heeft al gezegd dat de civil justice gebruikt gaat worden, en dus inderdaad geen doodstraf. Tot ongenoegen van de republikeinen.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 17:43 schreef hijweer het volgende:
Van de FP Nog drie verdachten aanslagen Boston vast

Iemand meer info over dit?

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 17:53 schreef opgebaarde het volgende:

[..]

dat zullen wel medewerkers van dat beveiligingsbedrijf zijn

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 18:04 schreef AppleMartini het volgende:

[..]

Nee, schijnen mensen te zijn die onderdak hebben geboden aan de verdachten.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 17:43 schreef hijweer het volgende:
Van de FP Nog drie verdachten aanslagen Boston vast

Iemand meer info over dit?

quote:

Op zaterdag 27 april 2013 12:41 schreef TeleportingKing het volgende:
Die Junes Umarov en Troy Crossley kunnen ook wel een bezoekje van de FBI verwachten.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 18:04 schreef AppleMartini het volgende:

[..]

Nee, schijnen mensen te zijn die onderdak hebben geboden aan de verdachten.

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 19:32 schreef opgebaarde het volgende:

[..]

Pardon, dacht dat ik in het BNW topic zat

twitter:

erikmouthaanRTL twitterde op woensdag 01-05-2013 om 17:33:29 Het zou gaan, volgens media VS, om studenten die na de aanslagen de Tsjetsjeense broers hielpen of onderdak gaven. reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 1 mei 2013 18:14 schreef TeleportingKing het volgende:

[..]

Het zou me niets verbazen als het hiermee te maken heeft: http://jesterscourt.cc/20(...)ombing-just-a-hunch/

[..]

quote:

Kadyrbayev and Azamat Tazhayakov were charged with conspiracy to obstruct justice by conspiring to destroy, conceal and cover up tangible objects belonging to Tsarnaev.

Phillipos was charged with lying to federal law enforcement officials during a terrorism investigation.

Kadyrbayev and Tazhayakov face a maximum sentence of five years in prison and $250,000 fine, reports Reuters. Phillipos faces a maximum of eight years behind bars and a $250,000 fine

quote:

Op zaterdag 4 mei 2013 08:18 schreef gebrokenglas het volgende:
Men heeft moeite het lichaam van Tamerlan begraven te krijgen. Geen enkele cemetry honoreert het verzoek.

[bron: RT]

quote:

Op zondag 5 mei 2013 16:56 schreef Captainp00face het volgende:
O, hij is nog niet begraven? Zal wel lekker ruiken dan.

quote:

Op zondag 5 mei 2013 17:10 schreef gebrokenglas het volgende:

[..]

Ligt in de koeling...

quote:

Op zondag 5 mei 2013 17:36 schreef computergirl het volgende:

[..]

In de usa worden ze ook standaard 'embalmed' volgens mij. Weet even niet hoe dat in nederlands heet.

quote:

Op zondag 5 mei 2013 17:53 schreef El_Matador het volgende:

[..]

Gebalsemd?

quote:

Op zaterdag 4 mei 2013 11:53 schreef Hathor het volgende:

[..]

Gewoon in een oven flikkeren, zo'n varken verdient ook geen grafsteen.

quote:

Op zondag 5 mei 2013 16:24 schreef RobertoCarlos het volgende:
Ze hebben geen recht op privacy zegt deze rechter/procesutor op een bijeenkomst van de wapenvereniging NRA....

Judge Jeanine Pirro Exposes Anti-Gun Hypocrisy during NRA SPEECH

quote:

In her NRA address, she first focused on Gov. Deval Patrick (D – Mass.) who initially refused to reveal how much taxpayer-funded welfare Tamerlan Tsarnaev received for reasons based on privacy (the full story on public assistance benefits awarded to he and his family has likely not yet come out). Pirro was incredulous: “Governor, what privacy? It was our hard-earned money — you give our money to a terrorist who murdered Americans, who blinded, deafened, and blew the arms and legs off innocent civilians, who turned the city of Boston into a lockdown war zone … and now you want to protect his privacy?”

She then connected Tsarnaev privacy concerns with the complete lack of privacy to gun owners shown by the Journal News in upstate New York. As you may recall, that was the newspaper that controversially published an interactive map (since taken down) of licensed gun owners names and addresses. Pirro has continued to pound on the newspaper for this decision. “On the other hand, it’s okay to invade my privacy and publish my name and where I live on an interactive map because I am a lawful gun owner. Which is why this girl from New York City, in high heels, is in Texas standing in front of you.”

The Journal News claimed it published the information because it wanted to share as much information about gun owners in the area in the aftermath of the massacre at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. But Pirro isn’t buying into that justification. “How dare you connect law abiding citizens like me exercising my Second Amendment right to a sick mass murderer of children?”
”

quote:

Sources told NewsChannel 4 that in one conversation, Pirro complained that one of Kerik's employees was reluctant to board Albert Pirro's boat.

Jeanine Pirro suggests, "We can just simply say, if there is an issue, that I am redecorating it for our anniversary.” She complains that Kerik’s man is, “uncomfortable with that.”

Kerik responded by saying, “But Jeanine, I’m having the same f------g problem with everybody. Everybody is panic stricken because it’s you. I’ve gone out on a limb. I had two other people looking at this. It’s a problem.”

Pirro said, “What am I supposed to do, Bernie? Watch him f--k her every night? What am I supposed to do? I can go on the boat. I’ll put the f-----g thing on myself.”

Minutes later, Kerik called a contact at Giuliani Partners, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s consulting firm, asking him to find a recording device, according to documents.

PIrro Presser

quote:

Op zondag 5 mei 2013 17:36 schreef computergirl het volgende:

[..]

In de usa worden ze ook standaard 'embalmed' volgens mij. Weet even niet hoe dat in nederlands heet.

quote:

Verdachte aanslag Boston begraven
De overleden verdachte van de bomaanslag op de marathon van Boston, Tamerlan Tsarnajev (26), is begraven. Dat meldde de politie van Worcester donderdag.

De politie zei dat het lichaam niet langer in Worcester is, maar zei er niet bij waar dan wel.
Het lichaam van Tsarnajev werd tot nu toe bewaard in een rouwcentrum in de plaats Worcester. De begrafenisondernemer had moeite een begraafplaats te vinden voor Tsarnajev.
Tamerlans broer, Dzjochar (19), zit vast. Samen worden zij verdacht van de aanslagen van vorige maand, die drie doden en 264 gewonden tot gevolg hadden.

Meer beveiliging

Politiechef Edward Davis van Boston zei donderdag dat grote evenementen zoals de marathon van Boston meer beveiliging nodig hebben.
Hij waarschuwde echter wel dat de Verenigde Staten geen ''politiestaat'' moeten worden. Davis pleit voor meer gebruik van bewakingscamera's, speciale politie-eenheden en meer undercover agenten. ''Maar de privacy van het publiek moet ook worden beschermd'', zei hij tijdens een congreshoorzitting over de aanslag. Die hoorzitting maakt onderdeel uit van een aantal onderzoeken naar de bomaanslag.

quote:

Tsarnajev-broers pleegden mogelijk eerder moorden
De Tsarnajev-broers die worden verdacht van de bomaanslag bij de marathon van Boston, zijn mogelijk betrokken geweest bij een drievoudige moord in 2011.

Onderzoekers in de Amerikaanse staat Massachusetts spreken van ''ophopend bewijsmateriaal''. Dat meldde ABC News zaterdag.
De moord op drie mannen werd op 11 september 2011 gepleegd in Waltham, een voorstad van Boston. De lijken werden met doorgesneden keel in een woning aangetroffen. De lichamen waren bedekt met marihuana. Een van de mannen was een oud-kamergenoot van de oudste broer Tamerlan Tsarnajev (26) en beoefende samen met hem een vechtsport.
Naast forensisch bewijsmateriaal, is er ook bewijs dat mobiele telefoons van de Tsarnajev-broers op de avond van de moord waarschijnlijk in de buurt van het huis waren. De onderzoekers willen eerst een DNA-test voltooien, voordat de jongere broer Dzjochar Tsarnajev (19) wordt gedagvaard.

Aanslagen Boston

Dzjochar en Tamerlan worden verdacht van de bomaanslag in Boston die aan drie mensen het leven heeft gekost en waarbij 264 mensen gewond raakten. Tamerlan kwam tijdens een vuurgevecht met de politie om het leven. Dzjochar werd enkele dagen na de bomaanslag opgepakt.

quote:

Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

Last October, senior Obama officials anonymously unveiled to the Washington Post their newly minted "disposition matrix", a complex computer system that will be used to determine how a terrorist suspect will be "disposed of": indefinite detention, prosecution in a real court, assassination-by-CIA-drones, etc. Their rationale for why this was needed now, a full 12 years after the 9/11 attack:

Among senior Obama administration officials, there is a broad consensus that such operations are likely to be extended at least another decade. Given the way al-Qaida continues to metastasize, some officials said no clear end is in sight. . . . That timeline suggests that the United States has reached only the midpoint of what was once known as the global war on terrorism."

On Thursday, the Senate Armed Services Committee held a hearing on whether the statutory basis for this "war" - the 2001 Authorization to Use Military Force (AUMF) - should be revised (meaning: expanded). This is how Wired's Spencer Ackerman (soon to be the Guardian US's national security editor) described the most significant exchange:

"Asked at a Senate hearing today how long the war on terrorism will last, Michael Sheehan, the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict, answered, 'At least 10 to 20 years.' . . . A spokeswoman, Army Col. Anne Edgecomb, clarified that Sheehan meant the conflict is likely to last 10 to 20 more years from today - atop the 12 years that the conflict has already lasted. Welcome to America's Thirty Years War."

That the Obama administration is now repeatedly declaring that the "war on terror" will last at least another decade (or two) is vastly more significant than all three of this week's big media controversies (Benghazi, IRS, and AP/DOJ) combined. The military historian Andrew Bacevich has spent years warning that US policy planners have adopted an explicit doctrine of "endless war". Obama officials, despite repeatedly boasting that they have delivered permanently crippling blows to al-Qaida, are now, as clearly as the English language permits, openly declaring this to be so.

It is hard to resist the conclusion that this war has no purpose other than its own eternal perpetuation. This war is not a means to any end but rather is the end in itself. Not only is it the end itself, but it is also its own fuel: it is precisely this endless war - justified in the name of stopping the threat of terrorism - that is the single greatest cause of that threat.

In January, former Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson delivered a highly-touted speech suggesting that the war on terror will eventually end; he advocated that outcome, arguing:

'War' must be regarded as a finite, extraordinary and unnatural state of affairs. We must not accept the current conflict, and all that it entails, as the 'new normal.'"

In response, I wrote that the "war on terror" cannot and will not end on its own for two reasons: (1) it is designed by its very terms to be permanent, incapable of ending, since the war itself ironically ensures that there will never come a time when people stop wanting to bring violence back to the US (the operational definition of "terrorism"), and (2) the nation's most powerful political and economic factions reap a bonanza of benefits from its continuation. Whatever else is true, it is now beyond doubt that ending this war is the last thing on the mind of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize winner and those who work at the highest levels of his administration. Is there any way they can make that clearer beyond declaring that it will continue for "at least" another 10-20 years?

The genius of America's endless war machine is that, learning from the unplesantness of the Vietnam war protests, it has rendered the costs of war largely invisible. That is accomplished by heaping all of the fighting burden on a tiny and mostly economically marginalized faction of the population, by using sterile, mechanized instruments to deliver the violence, and by suppressing any real discussion in establishment media circles of America's innocent victims and the worldwide anti-American rage that generates.

Though rarely visible, the costs are nonetheless gargantuan. Just in financial terms, as Americans are told they must sacrifice Social Security and Medicare benefits and place their children in a crumbling educational system, the Pentagon remains the world's largest employer and continues to militarily outspend the rest of the world by a significant margin. The mythology of the Reagan presidency is that he induced the collapse of the Soviet Union by luring it into unsustainable military spending and wars: should there come a point when we think about applying that lesson to ourselves?

Then there are the threats to Americans' security. Having their government spend decades proudly touting itself as "A Nation at War" and bringing horrific violence to the world is certain to prompt more and more people to want to attack Americans, as the US government itself claims took place just recently in Boston (and as clearly took place multiple other times over the last several years).

And then there's the most intangible yet most significant cost: each year of endless war that passes further normalizes the endless rights erosions justified in its name. The second term of the Bush administration and first five years of the Obama presidency have been devoted to codifying and institutionalizing the vast and unchecked powers that are typically vested in leaders in the name of war. Those powers of secrecy, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and due-process-free assassination are not going anywhere. They are now permanent fixtures not only in the US political system but, worse, in American political culture.

Each year that passes, millions of young Americans come of age having spent their entire lives, literally, with these powers and this climate fixed in place: to them, there is nothing radical or aberrational about any of it. The post-9/11 era is all they have been trained to know. That is how a state of permanent war not only devastates its foreign targets but also degrades the population of the nation that prosecutes it.

This war will end only once Americans realize the vast and multi-faceted costs they are bearing so that the nation's political elites can be empowered and its oligarchs can further prosper. But Washington clearly has no fear that such realizations are imminent. They are moving in the other direction: aggressively planning how to further entrench and expand this war.

One might think that if there is to be a debate over the 12-year-old AUMF, it would be about repealing it. Democratic Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who heroically cast the only vote against it when it was originally enacted by presciently warning of how abused it would be, has been advocating its repeal for some time now in favor of using reasonable security measures to defend against such threats and standard law enforcement measures to punish them (which have proven far more effective than military solutions). But just as happened in 2001, neither she nor her warnings are deemed sufficiently Serious even to consider, let alone embrace.

Instead, the Washington AUMF "debate" recognizes only two positions: (1) Congress should codify expanded powers for the administration to fight a wider war beyond what the 2001 AUMF provides (that's the argument recently made by the supreme war-cheerleaders-from-a-safe-distance at the Washington Post editorial page and their favorite war-justifying think tank theorists, and the one being made by many Senators from both parties), or (2) the administration does not need any expanded authority because it is already free to wage a global war with very few limits under the warped "interpretation" of the AUMF which both the Bush and Obama DOJs have successfully persuaded courts to accept (that's the Obama administration's position). In other words, the shared premise is that the US government must continue to wage unlimited, permanent war, and the only debate is whether that should happen under a new law or the old one.

Just to convey a sense for how degraded is this Washington "debate": Obama officials at yesterday's Senate hearing repeatedly insisted that this "war" is already one without geographical limits and without any real conceptual constraints. The AUMF's war power, they said, "stretches from Boston to the [tribal areas of Pakistan]" and can be used "anywhere around the world, including inside Syria, where the rebel Nusra Front recently allied itself with al-Qaida's Iraq affiliate, or even what Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) called 'boots on the ground in Congo'". The acting general counsel of the Pentagon said it even "authorized war against al-Qaida's associated forces in Mali, Libya and Syria". Newly elected independent Sen. Angus King of Maine said after listening to how the Obama administration interprets its war powers under the AUMF:

This is the most astounding and most astoundingly disturbing hearing that I've been to since I've been here. You guys have essentially rewritten the Constitution today."

Former Bush DOJ official Jack Goldsmith, who testified at the hearing, summarized what was said after it was over: Obama officials argued that "they had domestic authority to use force in Mali, Syria, Libya, and Congo, against Islamist terrorist threats there"; that "they were actively considering emerging threats and stated that it was possible they would need to return to Congress for new authorities against those threats but did not at present need new authorities"; that "the conflict authorized by the AUMF was not nearly over"; and that "several members of the Committee were surprised by the breadth of DOD's interpretation of the AUMF." Conveying the dark irony of America's war machine, seemingly lifted right out of the Cold War era film Dr. Strangelove, Goldsmith added:

Amazingly, there is a very large question even in the Armed Services Committee about who the United States is at war against and where, and how those determinations are made."

Nobody really even knows with whom the US is at war, or where. Everyone just knows that it is vital that it continue in unlimited form indefinitely.

In response to that, the only real movement in Congress is to think about how to enact a new law to expand the authorization even further. But it's a worthless and illusory debate, affecting nothing other than the pretexts and symbols used to justify what will, in all cases, be a permanent and limitless war. The Washington AUMF debate is about nothing other than whether more fig leafs are needed to make it all pretty and legal.

The Obama administration already claims the power to wage endless and boundless war, in virtually total secrecy, and without a single meaningful check or constraint. No institution with any power disputes this. To the contrary, the only ones which exert real influence - Congress, the courts, the establishment media, the plutocratic class - clearly favor its continuation and only think about how further to enable it. That will continue unless and until Americans begin to realize just what a mammoth price they're paying for this ongoing splurge of war spending and endless aggression.

Although I'm no fan of mindless partisan hackery, one must acknowledge, if one is to be honest, that sometimes it produces high comedy of the type few other afflictions are capable of producing.

On a related note: when Attorney General Eric Holder spoke about the DOJ's subpoeans for AP's phone records - purportedly issued in order to find the source for AP's story about a successfully thwarted terror attack from Yemen - he made this claim about the leak they were investigating: "if not the most serious, it is within the top two or three most serious leaks that I have ever seen." But yesterday, the Washington Post reported that CIA officials gave the go-ahead to AP to report the story, based in part on the fact that the administration itself planned to make a formal announcement boasting of their success in thwarting the plot. Meanwhile, the invaluable Marcy Wheeler today makes a strong case that the Obama administration engaged in a fear-mongering campaign over this plot that they knew at the time was false - all for the purpose of justifying the president's newly announced "signature drone strikes" in Yemen.

The key lesson from all of this should have been learned long ago: nothing is less reliable than unchecked claims from political officials that their secret conduct is justified by National Security Threats and the desire to Keep Us Safe.

Washington gets explicit: its 'war on terror' is permanent | Glenn Greenwald

Bron: www.guardian.co.uk

quote:

FBI schiet na verhoor kennis broers Tsarnajev dood


De FBI in Orlando (Florida) heeft een man doodgeschoten die werd verhoord over zijn relatie met de twee broers die de aanslagen in Boston gepleegd zouden hebben.

De 27-jarige Ibrahim Todasjev was net als de broers afkomstig uit Tsjetsjenië en zou Tamerlan Tsarnajev, de oudste van de twee, in de Verenigde Staten hebben leren kennen tijdens het sporten. Volgens NBC werd hij door de FBI over zijn relatie met Tamerlan verhoord, en heeft hij een van de agenten later bij een appartementencomplex aangevallen. Daarop werd hij doodgeschoten.

De FBI wil alleen zeggen dat een agent 'tijdens zijn dienst een confrontatie heeft gehad met een verdachte' en dat deze verdachte is overleden. Er zijn verder geen details bekend gemaakt.

Khusn Taramiv, een vriend van de doodgeschoten man, vertelt dat hij dinsdag net als Todasjev drie uur lang is verhoord. De FBI zou meer hebben willen weten over hun relatie met de broers, en hun eigen politieke gedachtegoed. Volgens Taramiv was Todasjev ervan overtuigd dat ze 'erin werden geluisd' en was hij bezorgd dat er iets ergs met hen zou gebeuren. De vriend zei ook dat ze allebei al meerdere keren waren gevolgd door de FBI.

Todasjev zou een trip naar Tsjetsjenië hebben gepland omdat hij familie wilde bezoeken, maar volgens Taramiv zou hij dit bezoek op aandringen van de FBI hebben afgezegd. De vriend vertelt ook dat ze beide moslim zijn, maar niet radicaal. Todasjev zou volgens hem geen wapen hebben gehad.

De broers Tsarnajev worden verdacht van de bomaanslag in april bij de marathon van Boston waardoor drie doden vielen en meer dan 200 mensen gewond raakten. Tamerlan Tsarnajev kwam tijdens een schietpartij met de politie in Watertown in de buurt van Boston om het leven. De jongste broer Dzjochar zit in de gevangenis en is aangeklaagd.

Bron: Volkskrant