Terrorist Attack at Boston Marathon #12

[time]

Here is the last article, Nov reply and links/dates, to the other significant events.

Tsarnaev Files Reply in Support of Motion to Vacate Special Administrative Measures
November 8, 2013
On Monday, accused Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev filed his reply to the government’s response to his motion to vacate special administrative measures (SAMs) imposed on him and his attorneys. In his filing, Tsarnaev rejects the government’s claim that the …

Government Files Response to Tsarnaev’s Motion to Vacate Special Administrative Measures
October 30, 2013

Tsarnaev Files Motion to Vacate Special Administrative Measures
October 7, 2013

 

[time]

IDK...I can't see anything that convinces me the SAMs are preventing his attorneys from effectively representing him. As far as human rights, I would be more concerned about whether DT's restrictions are as humane as is possible.

From his defense
"The restrictions on Mr. Tsarnaev leave him in nearly total isolation. He is confined to his cell except for legal visits and very limited access to a small outdoor enclosure, on weekdays, weather-permitting. The purported basis for these conditions lies in the crimes he is alleged to have committed prior to arrest, not any behavior during his confinement,"

Prisoners in solitary confinement mostly do not fare well physically and mentally, but I'm not getting their argument in my BBM above and it's somewhat vague on how limited his access is to the outdoor enclosure.

I tend to think his attorneys are very very good at what they do and are fighting on fine points - the kind that make a difference over time, but I'm not convinced his defense is being harmed by most of this. Asking for documents related to the case is another story as is the govt knowing everything about defense discussions.

ACLU involvement
http://www.latimes.com/nation/natio...tsarnaev-legal-battle-20131107,0,551811.story

 

[i.b.nora]

From the first document you posted:


http://www.scribd.com/doc/172838284/Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-Defense-Motion

MOTION TO VACATE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES (“SAMs”) IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL

FROM PAGE 10

The government also fails to explain how Mr. Tsarnaev’s alleged commitment to “jihadist” ideology, and alleged hope that his actions would inspire others, justify the SAMs. While the government focuses on Mr. Tsarnaev’s “notoriety” and states that he has received “nearly one thousand pieces of unsolicited mail,” it fails to mention that Mr. Tsarnaev has not responded to any of this mail and ignores the significance of the fact that it was “unsolicited.” To punish Mr. Tsarnaev, in effect, for something he has done nothing to encourage, is perverse. The government also fails to mention that none of this unsolicited mail could be characterized as “jihadist” in nature. Rather, it consisted almost entirely of letters and cards from individuals who believe he is innocent and people urging him to repent and convert to Christianity. All of this mail was screened under ordinary BOP procedures and deemed acceptable to be transmitted to him.

+

I just found the above particularly interesting. And, regardless of whether or not the SAMs and the government are impeding the defense ability to defend their client (and I think it is being impeded), I have a huge concern over what I think are possible violations of Constitutional rights. It really affects all of us. I tend to buy their arguments.

 

[time]

From the first document you posted:


http://www.scribd.com/doc/172838284/Dzhokhar-Tsarnaev-Defense-Motion

MOTION TO VACATE SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE MEASURES (“SAMs&#8221 IMPOSED ON DEFENDANT AND DEFENSE COUNSEL

FROM PAGE 10

The government also fails to explain how Mr. Tsarnaev’s alleged commitment to “jihadist” ideology, and alleged hope that his actions would inspire others, justify the SAMs. While the government focuses on Mr. Tsarnaev’s “notoriety” and states that he has received “nearly one thousand pieces of unsolicited mail,” it fails to mention that Mr. Tsarnaev has not responded to any of this mail and ignores the significance of the fact that it was “unsolicited.” To punish Mr. Tsarnaev, in effect, for something he has done nothing to encourage, is perverse. The government also fails to mention that none of this unsolicited mail could be characterized as “jihadist” in nature. Rather, it consisted almost entirely of letters and cards from individuals who believe he is innocent and people urging him to repent and convert to Christianity. All of this mail was screened under ordinary BOP procedures and deemed acceptable to be transmitted to him.

+

I just found the above particularly interesting. And, regardless of whether or not the SAMs and the government are impeding the defense ability to defend their client (and I think it is being impeded), I have a huge concern over what I think are possible violations of Constitutional rights. It really affects all of us. I tend to buy their arguments.

I'm concerned also about anyone's rights being violated. I'm just finding many of their arguments either miss the point or are confusing. For instance, I don't think he is allowed to respond so what good is the argument "that it fails to mention that Mr. Tsarnaev has not responded to any of this mail and ignores the significance of the fact that it was 'unsolicited'.” Of course he could receive mail that is 'unsolicited'.... seems like a moot argument. I'm against overly restrictive government and so forth, but DT did plant a WMD and he should have some fairly tight restrictions. He's not claiming he is innocent it seems either. All prisoners, including those in State Prisons, have very tight restrictions although not as tight as this ... their mail is read and censored if needed. The only part of this that I see is constricting his rights is making sure he has access to evidence and his attorneys.I don't see there is evidence of him being purposefully punished by the restrictions (they serve a purpose) nor do I think at this point he needs to get mail from supporters or converters or send out responses. I think he lost those rights for now due to the nature of his actions.

 

[i.b.nora]

Well, I think we sort of disagree or see some things differently, but that's o.k. I don't think our thinking is that far apart.

 

[time]

Well, I think we sort of disagree or see some things differently, but that's o.k. I don't think our thinking is that far apart.

Yeah, I don't think so. I'd have to parse out a lot of different things going on to say what I think is not right and what is ok regarding all this.

Still wishing they will just take the death penalty off the table.

 

[LambChop]

DT is no ordinary criminal. He is considered a terrorist. I would think the government wants as much information from this man as they can get so I would not be surprised to see a plea deal down the road. DT may have been involved in the marathon plan for his brother but his brother may have had far reaching connections elsewhere that the government would be interested in knowing about. If they take the DP off the table, he is not going to talk. jmo

 

[i.b.nora]

Yeah, I don't think so. I'd have to parse out a lot of different things going on to say what I think is not right and what is ok regarding all this.

Still wishing they will just take the death penalty off the table.

I totally and completely agree.

 

[i.b.nora]

DT is no ordinary criminal. He is considered a terrorist. I would think the government wants as much information from this man as they can get so I would not be surprised to see a plea deal down the road. DT may have been involved in the marathon plan for his brother but his brother may have had far reaching connections elsewhere that the government would be interested in knowing about. If they take the DP off the table, he is not going to talk. jmo

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was questioned for 16 hours before being read his rights. Surely they learned a significant amount of information at that time.

I would imagine that Katherine would know more than Dzhokar about Tamerlan's activities. Even if she doesn't I am at least certain she knows way more than the public has been led to believe.

And, I don't think Tamerlan had any far reaching connections. He was a phony, imo, a fop.

[DEFINITION from Merriam Webster]

Full Definition of FOP

1 obsolete : a foolish or silly person
2 : a man who is devoted to or vain about his appearance or dress : coxcomb, dandy

 

[time]

l.b. ...I tend to agree, I'm not sure DT has any more information. I have a theory that TT could have leaked to him that he was involved in the Waltham murders (maybe more recently), but only because it fits with my theory that DT was going to be left totally alone in the US. His parents already left and TT was becoming more and more radicalized and disenchanted and had tried to make a go of it in Russia (where it seems he was sort of laughed at and dissed - my theory as to why he had to prove himself with the bombing). I have to wonder if DT felt even more estranged that he was a citizen and TT had lost his chance too - maybe a small point, but... who knows. I'm not sure though that TT didn't have some other connections. I think I said this before, but I beleive the loner cells, even one or two people, have become desirable to terrorists. But this could still be a very minimal connection to something bigger for TT.

I also agree about Katherine, I think she knows more whether she has told the feds about it or not.

 

[Elley Mae]

ACLU booted from Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hearing

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...11/aclu_booted_from_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_hearing

 

[time]

Interesting, it appears from some articles I've read that the his defense is claiming DT is being tortured.

The former UMass Dartmouth student’s taxpayer-funded counsel will go before O’Toole tomorrow to argue for vacating what they deem “extraordinary and severe” restrictions they liken to “torture,” including that Tsarnaev is denied TV and radio, family photos, prayer with other inmates and visitation from anyone other than his lawyers and immediate family

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinio...11/aclu_booted_from_dzhokhar_tsarnaev_hearing

I'm not sure what definition they are using to claim that. Probably the most liberal interpretation and an agreement the US has signed comes from the U.N Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Furthermore...

This definition contains three cumulative elements:

• the intentional infliction of severe mental or physical suffering
• by a public official, who is directly or indirectly involved
• for a specific purpose.

http://www.apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/

I'm just not seeing DT's conditions as being torture ... that would at least have to assume they are intentionally inflicting horrible conditions in order to gain information from him (maybe even in an effort to prevent another attack?). I'm a little confused about that being mixed in with his rights to "access to his attorneys and information his lawyer claim is critical to defending him against a potential death sentence (ref)" possibly being denied.

Any thoughts?

 

[time]

Here is the document from the ACLU

 

[LambChop]

Any one think that DT is being kept away from other prisoners for his own safety?

 

[time]

A longer, more in-depth Atlantic article about the reasons on both sides for keeping or removing the SAMs restrictions.

Tsarnaev's attorneys and federal lawyers will argue this issue in federal court in Boston Tuesday morning. And while the dispute is unlikely to delay Tsarnaev's trial, it's an important moment in this latest terrorism trial of the century. Are the feds here are using the SAMs against Tsarnaev because they think he's plotting to wage a terror war from detention? Or are the feds restricting his communications because they don't want the notorious prisoner to become ever more of a political symbol than he already is? And does the Constitution even allow a judge to hazard an answer about which?

The defense says the SAMs cannot lawfully be imposed because Tsarnaev told his friends before his arrest to take his stuff or because his worldwide notoriety since his arrest has generated "nearly one thousand pieces of unsolicited mail." It would be perverse, Tsarnaev's attorneys argue, to punish him for letters he neither sought nor has responded to. Nor should the restrictions be imposed because his mother in May released portions of a phone call with him to gin up sympathy for her son. Preventing sympathy for a defendant is not part of the legal calculus of the SAMs, the defense argues.

There is "nothing speculative" about Tsarnaev's "ability to inspire others through his words in light of his past deeds," federal lawyers told Judge O'Toole. Not only has he subsequently made it into the July 2013 issue of Inspire magazine, an Al Qaeda publication, he's also been the subject of a Rolling Stone cover, the feds write. They also cite a Boston Globe story published this summer titled "Some radicals make heroes of Tsarnaev brothers," for the proposition that the defendant's "world-wide notoriety as a successful terrorist, couple with his avowed desire to inspire others" justifies the SAMs.

More at the link....

I think both sides may have some valid arguments although I definitely don't agree with the defense on the mom issue! :facepalm:

 

[i.b.nora]

Good article, thanks!

 

[time]

Tsarnaev's lawyers complained that prosecutors have failed to turn over several types of evidence they believe could help them argue against the death penalty, including information on a 2011 triple slaying in Waltham in which Tsarnaev's older brother, Tamerlan, is a suspect.

Miriam Conrad, one of Tsarnaev's lawyers, told the judge that the defense has also been frustrated by the government's refusal to turn over the immigration files of Tsarnaev's family and friends, information she said could also be used to argue against the death penalty.

"The government could provide it, and has not offered a single reason why it won't," she said.

Assistant U.S. Attorney William Weinreb countered that prosecutors have turned over "virtually all of the mitigating evidence" they have.

"We have not withheld any favorable information from them," he said.

In court documents filed last month, prosecutors acknowledged that a friend of Tamerlan Tsarnaev told investigators that Tamerlan participated in the unsolved killings of three men who were found in a Waltham apartment with their throats slit and marijuana sprinkled over their bodies.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's lawyers argued in court papers that any evidence of Tamerlan's involvement is mitigating information that is important as they prepare to defend his brother in the marathon bombing. His lawyers haven't said why they consider the evidence to be mitigating, but legal experts have theorized that the defense may be trying to show that Dzhokhar fell under the murderous influence of his older brother and that Tamerlan was the driving force behind the marathon bombings.

http://www.sfgate.com/news/crime/ar...s-lawyers-seek-evidence-from-feds-4978164.php

All this possible 'mitigating' evidence is one reason I think they should take the DP off the table (in answer to LambChops). I can see both sides in this, but I think taking the DP off the table is a good compromise as well as working out a compromise on who can meet with DT, etc.. Right now, I don't see how authorities can release details about the Waltham murder to DT's lawyers and I'm also not sure about releasing immigration files of Tsarnaev's family and friends.

The judge "took both defense motions under advisement and did not immediately rule" and also "rejected a request from prosecutors to schedule Tsarnaev's trial for next fall, saying it was too early to decide on a trial date."

 

[Kimberlyd125]

http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/bombing-suspect-to-learn-if-death-penalty-recommended

Bombing suspect to learn if death penalty recommended

Federal prosecutors in Massachusetts will decide within a week whether to recommend the death penalty for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev if he is convicted in the Boston Marathon bombing.

 

[Elley Mae]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...ea6420-4e0d-11e3-9890-a1e0997fb0c0_story.html

Holder said he will decide by mid-January whether to seek the death penalty if Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 20, is convicted in the Boston bombing attack. He said he will review separate recommendations by Carmen Ortiz, the U.S. attorney in Boston; a Justice Department review committee; the deputy attorney general; and Channing Phillips, the counselor to the attorney general.

 

[Elley Mae]

"The system seems to bend over backwards not to have executions,'' said Goelman, though he said he believes that "at the end of the day,'' Holder will likely certify the Tsarnaev prosecution as a death penalty case.

"If you put a bomb down in a crowd, it becomes one of those cases where you say, 'If not now, when do you ever certify a case as a death penalty case?' '' Goelman said.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/01/boston-marathon-bomber-tsarnaev/3760253/