Calling Jack Bauer

There’s a lot of interesting terminology being thrown around about the surviving Boston Marathon bombing suspect who’s in the hospital. First, there’s “terrorist.” I personally don’t have a problem with that one. But then we have heard calls for this guy to be treated as an “enemy combatant,” which would open the door to long detention without trial and certain interrogation techniques.

That one hasn’t gone anywhere, however, and they gave Dzhokhar Tsarnaev a Miranda warning. But now they say that the bombs these two brothers allegedly used were “weapons of mass destruction.” Really?

The crude bombs, packed with nails and ball bearings, were designed to cause maximum injury, and they did. But are they really WMD? Like chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, whose mythical existence in Iraq caused us to go to war? I wonder. But WMD use brings the death penalty.

The surviving brother, like his deceased sibling, is an American citizen. But he’s also of foreign extraction, and he’s said to be a follower of Islam. Were he a white Christian, I’m wondering if we would be discussing him in quite the same terms.

So when they get around to questioning him, does he have information that would tie him to, say, Al Qaeda training abroad? I would guess most of us profess to be opposed to torture – but then we consider all those bombing victims without an arm or a leg today. And then, we think, well, maybe in this case….

Dick Cheney must be smiling inside right now.

Crime and Punishment: The New Normal

It took us more than 10 years to catch up to the top perpetrators of 9/11. It took less than a week to catch up to the perpetrators of the Boston Marathon bombing. Do we need any more proof that a new day has arrived?

It’s largely about cameras. To paraphrase Allen Funt, we should be smiling all the time. Chances are we’re in somebody’s viewfinder or on a screen. Not a pleasant prospect for many of us who prize our privacy – but then there are times when we need those cameras. The FBI reviewed security camera recordings of two suspicious characters in the bombing. They put out press releases with the best shots, and within hours, they had crystal-clear pictures of the suspects, supplied by the public, because everybody has a camera now, either in their smartphones or as compact standalone equipment. Looks like the days of those police artist sketches are numbered. Funny how the suspects in all those sketches seemed to look exactly alike anyway.

The two suspects in the Boston case knew in short order they had nowhere to hide. Their pictures were everywhere. A convenience market security camera caught them in the process of a carjacking. Confrontations with law enforcement followed; one suspect was killed, the other one was captured alive, hiding in a boat in the backyard of a home. The public were on high alert. In the case of Suspect Two, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a homeowner noticed blood coming from the boat. A police helicopter with a thermal imaging camera determined that Mr. White Hat was in there, and that he was alive, though wounded. Police finally were able to capture him, and when the news got out, citizens lined the streets wildly applauding every law enforcement vehicle leaving the scene.

But it wasn’t simply about good police work. It couldn’t have been done without cameras, the media – social as well as traditional – and alert citizens. We should borrow one of the hands we’re clapping with, and pat ourselves on the back.

As well as the folks who invented smartphones.

Plain Speaking

It was interesting how long it took authorities to start using a certain word following the Boston Marathon bombings (indeed, I got the impression that “device” was a euphemism for “bomb,” which it took a long time for even the media to use, but that’s another program).

But “terrorism”? It took a really long time for authorities to use that one. It’s almost like I heard them trying to get it out, but not quite able to do it: “T-t-t-t-t-t…”

The FBI agent-in-charge, during a news conference, said the investigation was a criminal investigation, but only a “potential” terrorism investigation, if I heard him right. My question is, if even one person plants bombs that end up killing at least two and injuring well over 100, how is that not terrorism?

The reason, of course, is that the T-word seems to imply foreign, rather than domestic involvement – at least that’s how it has been since 9/11. Authorities don’t want angry mobs running around beating up people named, say, Osama (a not uncommon name in the Arab world). Actually, the use of maiming ball bearings in the explosives seems to imply foreign involvement much more strongly. But of course, home-grown folks can plant bombs, and even use ball bearings. The Internet provides the instruction.

There are other words and phrases that bother me when it comes to this stuff. I think I’d much rather be an honest-to-goodness “suspect” than a “person of interest.” I guess the latter is someone the cops really want to talk to but don’t have to charge. But if CNN tells the world I’m a “person of interest,” everyone’s going to believe I committed the crime anyway.

Terrorism, though,  is what it is. It doesn’t require half a dozen guys from the Middle East to do it. One individual, even with white skin – and a big enough grudge -- is perfectly capable of it.