Why Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Should Be Tried in Criminal Court in the United States

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (Source: USA Today)

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is a United States citizen who committed crimes on American soil. This is the beginning and the end of the conversation.

Honestly, I was more shocked than I should have been that people would call to try the surviving terrorist from the marathon bombings as an enemy combatant. I knew some people would say it; Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed a heinous crime against innocent civilians and this obviously engenders very strong emotions. But there is a very important reason why Tsarnaev should be tried in criminal court in the U.S.

Graphic Photos: To Publish or Not to Publish?

Note: This post is about graphic images and prominently displays a graphic image from last Monday's marathon bombing that some media outlets deemed too graphic to fully publish.

The scene after the Boston Marathon bombing (Source: Wikipedia)

A debate has popped up recently over the ethics of publishing gruesome photos like those of Marathon Bombing victim Jeff Bauman. Some have said that publishing these photos is in poor taste because of the gore that it subjects its viewers to. The Daily News even went so far as to alter one image of the bloody scene to make it less graphic.

Before getting into the merits of publishing gut-wrenching photos, it is pretty obvious that the altering of press photographs is inherently wrong. The consensus is you either run the photo or not, but sneakily editing it the way that the Daily News did is never the right thing to do.

Questions Unanswered in Boston

Newspapers for sale on Newbury Street (Source: Boston.com)

Last night I spent a good portion on GChat, speaking with a friend in Boston talking about how surreal the entire scene was yesterday. We signed off, saying that we will know more tomorrow. When I woke up this morning and watched the various press conferences I realized that would not be the case. A few items would be clarified, but the bombing would still be shrouded in mystery. Who had done this? Why?

I think these questions have led to a small debate about what constitutes terrorism. When CNN made the editorial decision to call what happened in Boston yesterday a terror attack and then the president did not reciprocate in his evening presser, some wondered why.

Terrorism does not have a proper definition under international law. The common definition of terrorism is an act of violence that meets three criteria (and the US's definition seems to mimic this):

1. A violent act intended to create fear or terror;
2. Is perpetrated to further a religious, ideological and/or political cause;
3. Deliberately targets or disregards the safety of non-combatants (civilians)

Yesterday's events definitely meet criteria 1 and 3. This was no accident and was meant to shatter the joy of the Massachusetts holiday and to shake this community to its core. Boston will bounce back; as Mayor Menino said we are a resilient city, but it would be hard to deny that this event has affected the city.

Yesterday's attack also shares a common terroristic trait: the cowardly targeting of civilians. Those gathered yesterday on Boylston to watch the end of the marathon were not state actors in wartime. They were innocent civilians gathered to celebrate the achievements of family and friends and enjoy the beginning of spring in Boston.

The question that many people are anxious to answer relates to motive. Who did this and why? Why bomb innocent civilians? What message was the bomber(s) trying to get across, if any? Until this is answered, we cannot say definitively that this is an act of terror.

While my hunch is that it is, we don't know that yet. The use of bombs at an event like this almost always indicates terrorism (with a few exceptions), but this could be the work of a deranged individual (think Aurora or Newtown) as opposed to someone trying to influence policy or misguidedly drive home some kind of ideology.

At the end of the day, though, this is simply semantics. Whether or not this falls under the pseudo-legal definition of terrorism will not bring back the victims. It will not repair the lives forever altered from senseless violence. It will not restore the atmosphere in Boston just prior to the attack. And that, in and of itself, is terrifying.

A Quick Word on Boston

Note: I wanted to break up this post into two parts. I had thought about making two separate posts, but I figured it would be a bit confusing. Part I is a personal reflection on the marathon and the inspiration of the event as a whole and the response of people today after the blast.

Part II is about the media response and the irresponsible speculation by journalists to fill air time and drive ratings and social media metrics.

I've written this so the first part is standalone, because not everyone is going to be in the mood to read about issues with today's media after such a tragedy.

Source: Boston Globe

Part I

Having grown up in the Boston area, and spent a decent amount of time on and around Boylston Street in high school, today's events at the marathon have hit close to home, to use a bad cliche. Patriots' Day is a special day in Massachusetts - a day off that most of the rest of the country does not get. Everyone who grew up in and around Boston can remember heading down to the marathon route to cheer on the runners as they go by in droves along the grueling 26.2 mile course.

Today's bombings will change the marathon for the foreseeable future. The openness and carefree vibe of the event will revert to a more closed and tense atmosphere next year and possibly for years to come. For an event with such a rich and vibrant history, from the revolutionary to the bizzarre to the inspirational, the fact that the marathon will forever be tainted with this tragedy is a shame.

Through all of this sadness and anger, watching the video of the scene right after the blast is inspiring in a way. It is inspiring because you see people rushing to the site of the blast, not knowing if there are any secondary devices waiting to take out first responders. It is inspiring to see cops, EMTs, firefighters, BAA volunteers, and runners working together to tear down barricades and get to the injured. Other stories of heroism and kindness coming out of the city do not replace the anger and fear and confusion that follow something like this, but it certainly helps to begin to displace them, which only time and reflection can do.

Part II

Unfortunately, in contrast to the heartwarming response to such evil, is the ridiculous speculation by media outlets. The Post reporting that a suspect is in custody and 12 people are dead (neither of which are confirmed true at the time of this writing and the latter having been reputed by BPD Commissioner Ed Davis multiple times). MSNBC jumped on the suspect bandwagon as well. This is just sloppy journalism with shoddy "sources."

On top of this, there is just wild speculation that has no business in a journalistic environment. I wasn't watching CNN, but from what I heard about Jane Harman she was just spewing speculation with zero basis in fact. Also Luke Russert thought that because he went to a Red Sox game twenty years ago when Waco happened that there could be a link to the marathon bombing.

Let me be clear about this: this could be an AQAP bombing. This could be a home-grown domestic terror bombing. If either scenario is true, Harman or Russert deserve zero credit for saying it on air/Twitter. Their speculation adds nothing to the fact finding that occurs after something like this, it adds nothing to the national discourse, and really only muddles what is going on and further confuses people. I understand there's a drive for ratings and retweets, to be the first to break a story, but that should never supersede journalism. Ever.

In times of tragedy like this there is a human drive to get the facts, to try to make sense of something like this in our minds. We need to see a cause and effect so we can prevent something like this in the future. Unfortunately, rationality and logic are far removed from an event like this and it simply does not make sense. Speculation with no factual backup to try to make sense of it is unfair to both the speculator and the speculatee. We look to the news for information and updates, not ratings-driven false scoops and made-up connections.

Justin Barrett of "Jungle Monkey" Fame Still Being Paid by Boston Police Department

Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett (CNN)

While following up on the about Boston Police Officer Justin Barrett, the person who wrote to the Boston Globe's Yvonne Abraham, who he calls a "hot little bird," chiding Henry Louis Gates, Jr. for being a "banana-eating jungle monkey" who has returned to his "roots," I could only find articles about Barrett's suspension and frivolous lawsuit. I thought to myself that this was pretty typical of the media, picking up an interesting story and then doing no follow up when the next hot story had come along. It turns out that Officer Barrett is still being paid by the Boston Police Department with Massachusetts tax dollars.

I called the Boston Police Department just to make sure, and they confirmed that Officer Barrett is suspended from the force with pay. So he's not even doing work and is being paid. I called the Mayor's office, knowing that Menino had previously called for Barrett to be fired, but got no comment on Barrett's suspension and continued tax dollar drain. The BPD said that Barrett's employment with the department was pending a termination hearing, but no one I spoke to seemed to know when that hearing would take place.

Now here's the ridiculousness of the entire situation: in an economy where unemployment is so high and layoffs are happening left and right as companies try to downsize, to have someone employed in a position he is not qualified to handle is ludicrous. Even going beyond the racism/sexism in Barrett's email, the line, "Your defense (4th paragraph) of Gates while he is on the phone while being confronted (INDEED) with a police officer is assuming he has rights when considered a suspect." That's Constitution 101 and any half-decent police officer should know that even suspects have rights in this great country.



Barrett's continued employment by the Boston Police Department while other city services are cut is a slap in the face to every person out there who has suffered and will suffer because of city budget cuts. I know that if I had sent an email like that to a newspaper and embarrassed my company the way Barrett did the BPD, HR would not think twice about letting me go, especially in this economy. So why is there a double-standard here and why is Barrett still being paid with Massachusetts tax dollars in the worst recession in recent memory?

Garbage is Political?

Big Belly compactor (Boston.com)

Boston, Massachusetts. A city where black and white don't really mix and home to a stark racial history. Where the money is old, and apparently the trash cans should be, too.

The members of the Back Bay Architectural Commission, a group designed to keep the historic aspects of the neighborhood intact, have been up in arms over a trash can. Not just any old trash can, though, a cleaner, more efficient one. The trash can is solar powered and compacts trash into neat 40 pound trash bricks, according the to Globe article. It requires fewer pick-ups from city workers and ensures that trash cannot blow out of it on windy days.

But its aesthetics are lacking, according to the Commission. It does not match the neighborhood and they want it redesigned in order to match the aura of Back Bay. Unfortunately, they cannot make a trash can into a rich white man, but the Commission will settle for wrought-iron ornamental casing.

Others in the neighborhood have either shown indifference to the trash cans, or have welcomed them, but the Commission is unfazed. Of course, people who live in glass houses (all up to code with the Commission, of course) should not throw stones. The Back Bay area used to be a mud basin for the previous industrial waste flow known as the Charles River until it was filled in by the city.

Here comes the kicker: the Back Bay does not want them, but neighborhoods with lower incomes such as Hyde Park, Jamaica Plain, and South Boston have been asking for them for a few months now. Well, wouldn't it make sense for the city, who paid about $3,600 per compacter, to just take them to the neighborhoods asking for them and out of the neighborhoods that are shunning them?

Instead, the City of Boston will come back with a new design for the trash bins in the hope that the Commission will approve. So the city will outright ignore these poorer neighborhoods in hopes that the rich, high tax-base Back Bay area will grant them permission to place trash cans on their sidewalks. Ridiculous.

 If I lived or had a business in Hyde Park, JP, or Southie I would be furious right now, knowing that the city is pandering to an upper class neighborhood that does not even want the barrels rather than bringing the machines to a part of the city that will actually appreciate them. This just further proves that everything - everything - is political, even something that seems as trivial as trash receptacles.