Does it tell us the situation is grave and they felt they had no other choice with an imminent attack coming, or does it tell us they care more about some terrorist acts than others? And if they were operating on the basis of an imminent attack to make that judgment, how did they know? It suggests they had some intel.
Hard to say because like Newtown the news is 'fluid'. First the pair robbed a 7/11, now they didn't--just a coincidence. The older one is quoted as saying he didn't have any friends despite social media pictures showing him with a woman boxing and smiling. They both were students with the young one reportedly returning to class and the dorms after the Monday bombing. That ether takes some serious cajones or rank idiocy. Or maybe the belief in a cause.
And what about the bomb factory? Where were they making the ordnance? There must be a safe house somewhere and it sure ain't a dorm room. There must be a house somewhere with evidence.
The most recent news conference featured a tired, dejected governor and a tired State Police officer basically telling the press and public they'd lost suspect number two despite him being surrounded by scores of police and agents. But what did they not tell us? How could he have possibly gotten away? He's either one of the slipperiest terrorists since Ramzi Yousef or there's a network of friends around Boston that rescued him before they could surround him last night, or they are pulling a fast one and lifting the restrictions making him believe they are standing down so he'll pop up like a mole.
All very bizarre--hard to believe this is America--but if it's terrorism it's also very effective. Who won't think about a possible explosion or gunfire now when going out in public every time they see someone even remotely Arab-looking (even if they can't bring themselves to admit it)?
At the same time something strange seems to be going on with the story about the Saudi national who was the first 'person of interest' in the marathon bombings. Hannity has had Steven Emerson on his show several times this past week who said he was told by sources, including being shown written documentation, that the Saudi student is scheduled to be deported Tuesday for 'national security violations'. Which appear to be numerous.
But why would Janet Napolitano vehemently deny there was any deportation in an exchange on Capitol Hill? Could it be because Emerson, whom this Gawker goofball seems to have never heard of before, is confusing two people with the same name? Wouldn't be the first time. But it certainly appears somebody with that name is scheduled to be deported for national security reasons.
Meanwhile Obama met with the Saudi foreign minister al-Faisal on Wednesday. What did they discuss? And why did the State Department issue an incredible explanation of why John Kerry canceled a press availability with same Saudi minister on Tuesday morning after the bombing? Oddly enough there hasn't been a State Dept press briefing since Tuesday to allow any follow up. Going back even further, there was a Saudi connection initially mentioned in the killing of the Colorado prisons director before the ex-con skinhead was killed then fingered for the crime.
Developing, as they say.
Congrats to the law enforcement folks in DC for catching the kid and keeping him from killing anymore innocent members of the public. There are some questions though, mainly on the federal side.
Why was a public BOLO necessary? It only led to them running and gunning and in the process, an LEO is now dead and Watertown has been traumatized and riddled with bullets and bombs. Was there a better way? Presuming the FBI still had their file on Tsarnaev from 2010--and considering that Obama thanked Vladimir Putin last night for his help on something related to the event--wouldn't it make sense that they would cross reference the pictures/video and come up with the suspects' names and addresses? If they had that kind of information why not go to the apartment and do a raid?
Or maybe they were concerned that they would blow up the building if such a tactic were tried. But isn't it possible they could have staked out the apartment and grabbed one of them when he went out for food?
As to the public safety exception on not issuing the Miranda warning, seems appropriate but one has to wonder what kind of information he provided in the moments between capture and the hospital, where he would have been drugged up. Somebody from Eric Holder's old law firm has probably already volunteered to become his pro bono lawyer, so they probably won't get much if he's treated like a common criminal.
MAIN QUESTIONS 4/20/13
When did the FBI have the videos of the Tsarnaevs placing the backpacks at the bombing sites? How soon? Why did they initially deny that a foreign country had given them tips about the bombers in 2010? Were they being adivsed by their profilers to look for right wing extremists immediately after the bombing? Why did the president thank Putin? What did he provide? Why didn't the FBI stake out the Tsarnaev home/apartments and try to snatch him rather than shutting down the region?
The initial report about the boat said a woman called police and said there was bloody clothing in her shed and their boat's tarp was disturbed. During this report it was said the boat had been checked by police earlier in the day, ie, it was within the perimeter. This could have been erroneous reporting, but after the event they dropped the part about the boat being checked earlier and are repeating that the boat location was just barely outside their perimeter. Now the boat owner is not talking.
These kinds of things, including the FBI having previously interviewed the older brother, may be more about saving face/preventing embarrassment and lawsuits than some kind evil conspiracy. After all, we are all human and nobody likes to be nailed by hindsight.
Hopefully some of these questions will be answered. It will be interesting to see if the usual suspects begin politicizing the event next week in an effort to bolster certain goals.