home

Government Releases Tsarnaev's Scrawled Boat Note

The Government responded to several of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's motions today. In its response to his motion to suppress statements, it reprinted what Jahar has scrawled while hiding inside the boat:

I’m jealous of my brother who ha[s] [re]ceived the reward of jannutul Firdaus (inshallah) before me. I do not mourn because his soul is very much alive. God has a plan for each person. Mine was to hide in this boat and shed some light on our actions. I ask Allah to make me a shahied (iA) to allow me to return to him and be among all the righteous people in the highest levels of heaven. He who Allah guides no one can misguide. A[llah Ak]bar!

[More...]

The US Government is killing our innocent civilians but most of you already know that. As a [UI] I can’t stand to see such evil go unpunished, we Muslims are one body, you hurt one you hurt us all. Well at least that's how muhhammad (pbuh) wanted it to be [for]ever, the ummah is beginning to rise/[UI] has awoken the mujahideen, know you are fighting men who look into the barrel of your gun and see heaven, now how can you compete with that. We are promised victory and we will surely get it. Now I don’t like killing innocent people it is forbidden in Islam but due to said [UI] it is allowed. All credit goes [UI].

Stop killing our innocent people and we will stop.

The Government's full response is here.

What conclusions does it draw from the note?

This writing, which bears hallmarks of al-Q’aeda-inspired rhetoric, suggested that Tsarnaev might have received instruction from a terrorist group. In addition, the fact that Tsarnaev used the word “we” (i.e. “We are promised victory and we shall surely get it. . . . Stop killing our innocent people and we will stop.) suggested that others might be poised to commit similar attacks and that Tsarnaev was urging them on.

I think both conclusions are a stretch to say the least. There's nothing in that note to suggest he was "instructed" or received training. I think it's more plausible he is repeating what he read online at websites and watched in You Tube videos. I also don't see where he suggests others are contemplating similar attacks. He clearly says in the beginning the "we" refers to Muslims -- he doesn't restrict it to radical Islamic terrorists.

In all, I think the note provides some support for the defense theory it intends to present in mitigation during the death phase that he was young, enamored of his overpowering brother and taking direction from him. The primary goal of the defense is to save Jahar's life, not convince a jury he didn't participate in the bombing.

< Wednesday Night Open Thread | Huge Shift: FBI to Record Most Custodial Interrogations >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Why (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by lentinel on Thu May 22, 2014 at 03:51:48 AM EST
    the government wants to make a case that this bombing was on instruction from a "terrorist group" escapes me.

    If anything, it would work to Jahar's defense.
    It would appear to make him a pawn, rather than an initiator.

    It is also puzzling that Jahar would have written,

    Now I don't like killing innocent people it is forbidden in Islam but due to said [UI] it is allowed. All credit goes [UI].

    It is interesting that he indicates that the killing of innocent people is forbidden in Islam. That's not the view of Islam that is generally circulated by our media in using terms like "Radical Isllam" - or even "Islamists" when referencing terrorist acts.

    Hmmmmm (none / 0) (#23)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:08:02 PM EST
    Killing of innocents may be forbidden but the simple fact is that radical Muslim Terrorists have been killing innocent people for quite sometime now...

    The use of the media terms actually work in the favor of Muslims because it clearly defines the fact that not all Muslims are terrorists or radical.

    Me thinks thou protests too much.

    Parent

    I'll (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by lentinel on Thu May 22, 2014 at 07:02:02 PM EST
    try to be kind... but your answer is so bereft of intelligence that it puts a strain on my desire to be charitable.

    Briefly - there are the noble precepts of any given religion - Christianity for example.  And then there are those who, in the name of that religion, do barbaric things.

    One must distinguish one from the other.

    Parent

    Your response (none / 0) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:01:13 PM EST
    has nothing to do with your comment or my reply.

    And I find it interesting that here we have a radical Muslim terrorist killing and wounding for no other reason than he feels compelled to do so and you bring up the old moral equivalency argument.

    Why can't you just accept that we are under attack by a large number of committed radical Muslim terrorists who are supported both overtly and covertly by various organizations plus some Muslim nation states?

    Parent

    Your response (none / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:01:14 PM EST
    has nothing to do with your comment or my reply.

    And I find it interesting that here we have a radical Muslim terrorist killing and wounding for no other reason than he feels compelled to do so and you bring up the old moral equivalency argument.

    Why can't you just accept that we are under attack by a large number of committed radical Muslim terrorists who are supported both overtly and covertly by various organizations plus some Muslim nation states?

    Parent

    Put simply, (none / 0) (#46)
    by lentinel on Fri May 23, 2014 at 05:05:28 PM EST
    GW Bush is not acting as a Christian.

    He is a terrorist.

    Parent

    Your response (none / 0) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:10:43 PM EST
    has nothing to do with your comment or my reply.

    And I find it interesting that here we have a radical Muslim terrorist killing and wounding for no other reason than he feels compelled to do so and you bring up the old moral equivalency argument.

    Why can't you just accept that we are under attack by a large number of committed radical Muslim terrorists who are supported both overtly and covertly by various organizations plus some Muslim nation states?

    Parent

    I have no idea as to why (none / 0) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu May 22, 2014 at 09:11:47 PM EST
    I'm doubling. I'm gonna go back to AOL and see if that helps.

    Parent
    Simply speaking, (none / 0) (#45)
    by lentinel on Fri May 23, 2014 at 04:53:45 PM EST
    he is not a believer in Islam.

    He is a terrorist.

    Parent

    so, this kid is basically insane. (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by cpinva on Thu May 22, 2014 at 11:59:54 AM EST
    sorry, anyone who claims to commit a horrific act, because some invisible guy in the sky told him to, is insane by any standard. doesn't mean he's criminally insane (he's clearly demonstrated he knows/knew the difference between right & wrong), just that, if you're expecting a rational thought process from him, you're bound to be disappointed.

    Equating religious faith with insanity (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Peter G on Thu May 22, 2014 at 12:51:26 PM EST
    will not get you very far in any attempt at intelligent discussion with most people.

    Parent
    Yet it's funny (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 01:33:43 PM EST
    That having voices in your head tell you to do things is the definition of insanity until god is mentioned.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2014 at 02:19:40 PM EST
    Except hearing God talking to you in your head or elsewhere, particularly when s/he tells you special things that are not shared by the flock, is considered a warning sigh of insanity and not a sign of being very religious.

    Parent
    Is "flock" (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:50:09 PM EST
    Methodists or Branch Davidians?

    Parent
    Gaggle? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:09:09 PM EST
    Bellowing (bullfinches), quiver (cobras), carload (monkeys), rhumba (rattlesnakes), congress (salamanders), doading (sheldrakes), wisdom (wombate)

    does not list religions though

    Parent

    A shrewdness of apes? (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:11:02 PM EST
    Talkleft?

    Parent
    My favorite has been (none / 0) (#42)
    by sj on Fri May 23, 2014 at 03:53:41 PM EST
    a murmuration of starlings, but "flock" is a pretty standard alternative to congregation, right? Or is a flock larger than a congregation?

    Parent
    Not as crazy (none / 0) (#10)
    by jbindc on Thu May 22, 2014 at 01:54:35 PM EST
    As trying to excuse bad or criminal behavior because of being drunk, being high, being on prescription meds, not having a good childhood, someone looked at you funny, etc.

    Parent
    What about the "Twinkie Defense?" (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 23, 2014 at 03:23:33 PM EST
    Consumption of twinkies is a symptom of depression.  (From the Dan White trial).

    Parent
    Please don't even bring up (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by Zorba on Fri May 23, 2014 at 07:12:17 PM EST
    Dan White and the "Twinkie defense."
    We lived in San Francisco at the time, Harvey Milk was our SF Supervisor.  We knew him and we liked him.
    The "Twinkie defense" indeed worked for Dan White.
    But then, Dan White was a white, "Christian" guy.

    Parent
    Fully understand, Mme. Z. (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by KeysDan on Fri May 23, 2014 at 08:00:15 PM EST
    A tragedy piled on top of a tragedy.  But, that defense found its way into a Supreme Court case (US v Gonzales-Lopez) that centered on the right to a preferred lawyer as a core right under the sixth amendment.  The question was, in effect, does it matter if a first choice or a second choice so long as the trial is fair?  And, are lawyers fungible?   Justice Scalia proclaimed  "I don't want a competent lawyer.  I want a lawyer to get me off.  I want a lawyer to invent the Twinkie defense.  I want to win."  

    Parent
    I think history will see Scalia (none / 0) (#49)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 23, 2014 at 08:12:47 PM EST
    As the lowest point for the court since the people who gave us Dred Scott

    Parent
    How about if god told you to be (none / 0) (#12)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:18:20 PM EST
    Drunk high whacked on MEDS or that someone looked at you funny?


    Parent
    Getting Drunk (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by squeaky on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:29:33 PM EST
    "Rava said: It is one's duty levasumei, to make oneself fragrant [with wine] on Purim until one cannot tell the difference between 'arum Haman' (cursed be Haman) and 'barukh Mordekhai' (blessed be Mordecai)" (Babylonian Talmud, Megillah 7b).

    God hath commanded it for purim (or someone who god spoke to!  Also on Passover it is a requirement to drink 4 glasses of wine.

    Parent

    Christopher Hitchens (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:48:10 PM EST
    Alcohol makes other people less tedious, and food less bland, and can help provide what the Greeks called entheos, or the slight buzz of inspiration when reading or writing.

    Parent
    Christopher Hitchens (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by jbindc on Thu May 22, 2014 at 04:52:08 PM EST
    Makes every other writer seem smarter.

    Parent
    I miss him so much (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:12:08 PM EST
    Me too (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:21:19 PM EST
    "Beware the irrational, however seductive. Shun the 'transcendent' and all who invite you to subordinate or annihilate yourself. Distrust compassion; prefer dignity for yourself and others. Don't be afraid to be thought arrogant or selfish. Picture all experts as if they were mammals. Never be a spectator of unfairness or stupidity. Seek out argument and disputation for their own sake; the grave will supply plenty of time for silence. Suspect your own motives, and all excuses. Do not live for others any more than you would expect others to live for you."

    Parent
    Like I said (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:37:57 PM EST
    He makes everyone else look smart in comparison.

    Parent
    And they killed Oliver North (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 05:39:19 PM EST
    All is right in the world :)

    Parent
    I thought the finale was good (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:14:10 PM EST
    They killed Ollie, I love the possibility of the daughter coming into play.  I really like her character.  And I loved the revelation with the skinny teenager who killed his parents.and sister.   Didn't see that coming.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#25)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu May 22, 2014 at 06:14:55 PM EST
    I thought we were in the open
    Sorry


    Parent
    What sort of times are these (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by jondee on Fri May 23, 2014 at 12:15:07 PM EST
    when the most entertaining left-leaning contrarian is also a pathetic, Wolfowitz-snuggling neocon?

    You take the bad with the good?

    Parent

    Pretty sure Hitch said out loud (none / 0) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 23, 2014 at 10:03:19 PM EST
    In front of you and everyone that he was WRONG.  How can you truly affect people if you can't know them though?  I believe isolating or being exclusive has its uses, but it isn't the answer to everything.

    It is enough for me that he said he was wrong, as if his vote on Iraq ever mattered in what Bush and Cheney and company were going to do.

    You don't have to like him or have any respect for him,it is required of you.

    Parent

    I can't find any evidence (none / 0) (#53)
    by sj on Sat May 24, 2014 at 12:19:33 PM EST
    where Hitchens said he was wrong. I find lots of other people saying he was wrong, but that's not the same thing.

    My own view is that he was an alcoholic whose lifetime exceeded the use of functioning brain cells and he was necessarily depending more and more on his amygdala and a residual way with words.

    OTOH, I'm having a hard time figuring out who the "he" and "him" is/are you are referring to. Once you throw in "vote" your comment goes all sideways for me.

    Parent

    4 glasses of wine? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Militarytracy on Fri May 23, 2014 at 12:41:13 PM EST
    I'd be passed out

    Parent
    Standard fare for Bill Maher (none / 0) (#31)
    by MKS on Fri May 23, 2014 at 12:04:43 AM EST
    And, direct attacks on religion are effective if rude....

    The most effective thing that has shaken right wingers out of their belief structure--that I have seen at least--is Dan Brown's Da Vinci Code.  Just really shook a lot of people's faith, which I found fascinating--that all these devout people could be so shook up over a book of fiction.

    I used to think Maher was just rude.  Now, I think his views are more and more accepted.  Talk to some young kids....Mama Mia.....not much religious belief there......

    Parent

    not much religious belief there...... (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 23, 2014 at 08:51:28 AM EST
    ...and thank God for that

    Parent
    which one? (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by MKS on Fri May 23, 2014 at 12:00:26 PM EST
    Take your pick (none / 0) (#40)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 23, 2014 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    Not that anyone cares but I am not a critic of a certain kind of spiritualism.  I think Joseph Campbell was a great man.  He called it mythology.  

    It is modern organized religion I despise.

    Parent

    I am a fan of the Greek gods (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MKS on Fri May 23, 2014 at 10:49:01 PM EST
    Ancient soap opera.

    Parent
    Loved when (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Fri May 23, 2014 at 08:43:19 AM EST
    Ben Affleck, as a guest on Maher's show, called him out when Maher was on one of his usual boring attacks on people who believe in God.  Affleck said he was being offensive and Maher didn't really know how to respond.

    Parent
    That's funny (none / 0) (#33)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri May 23, 2014 at 08:47:57 AM EST
    I saw that and that's not what I saw. Do you think that was the first time Maher was told he was being offensive by a celebutard?

    Parent
    Oh definitely not! (none / 0) (#44)
    by sj on Fri May 23, 2014 at 04:00:22 PM EST
    Do you think that was the first time Maher was told he was being offensive by a celebutard?
    And many times they are quite right. I used to watch him "religiously", but the more he grew to love the sound of his own voice, the less I liked it.


    Parent
    Maher has really (none / 0) (#36)
    by MKS on Fri May 23, 2014 at 12:05:48 PM EST
    emphasized a point that can get lost.  If we were to listen to a story as fantastic and supernatural as the Christian miracle stories in any other context, we would say the person is delusional.  The reason many do not react that way is that the Jesus Story is familiar.

    Maher's argument is that if the Jesus story were new and first told today, it would be easily relegated to the same genre as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy and Zeus, etc.

    Parent

    Art education (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jondee on Fri May 23, 2014 at 12:32:02 PM EST
    and a mandatory deep reading of Emerson, Whitman, and Thoreau would take care of 90% of the loony tunes fundamentalism in this country..

    And it'd neutralize a lot of the enforced "market friendly" impulse-buyer stupidity.

    Fundamentalism and commodity fetishism are just bad poetry.

    Parent

    John Steinbeck (none / 0) (#52)
    by MKS on Fri May 23, 2014 at 11:08:11 PM EST
    can give you a sense of people oriented values...

    Parent
    I didn't see that (none / 0) (#43)
    by sj on Fri May 23, 2014 at 03:57:57 PM EST
    but, having seen other Maher tirades on the subject, I'll blindly agree with Affleck. And I'm not even a practicing Catholic. Maher gets really boring on the subject.

    Parent
    If the governments allegation is correct.... (none / 0) (#1)
    by magster on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:36:03 PM EST
    it is interesting how sophisticated the bomb was, and raising the question of whether this was a broader conspiracy.

    The justification for not reading Miranda rights.. (none / 0) (#2)
    by magster on Wed May 21, 2014 at 11:37:23 PM EST
    though is baloney.

    Parent
    Huh?? (none / 0) (#55)
    by JayBat on Wed May 28, 2014 at 06:42:53 PM EST
    The CNN article describes a glorified pipe bomb made with torn-up consumer fireworks, ignited by christmas tree lights as "sophisticated".

    That is absurd. That is a crude explosive device that any high school kid could put together after an hour with Google.

    Parent

    So What Did He Tell the FBI? (none / 0) (#4)
    by RickyJim on Thu May 22, 2014 at 10:52:54 AM EST
    The linked legal document says that the FBI was justified in believing that there might be coplotters ready to strike again.  It doesn't just rely on the scrawled boat note to conclude that.  The claim is made that Jahar denied that others were involved but little else was revealed about the content of his statements during the interrogation.  I am really curious  about his motivation.  Why did he conclude it was OK to kill innocents, even though he admitted in the note that Islam doesn't approve of that.  Which US interventions in the Muslim world was he really bothered by?  Didn't he blame Russia more than the US for the problems in Chechnya?  

    I have read articles that claim Tsarnaev was a inveterate pot smoker, who did not attend Mosque  and who had lost interest in his schoolwork and was spending much time hanging out with his buddies, most of them non Muslim.  I find that hard to reconcile with his terrorist actions and the boat note.

    No mystery there... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 22, 2014 at 11:15:38 AM EST
    A bunch of attempts at character assassination thrown at the wall.  Whether half true or nothing of the truth, we'll never really know.  The trial will be more of the same.

    Parent
    You're not the only one... (none / 0) (#54)
    by TH71 on Wed May 28, 2014 at 12:59:37 AM EST
    who finds it hard to recognize these dual aspects of his personality. We may never know other than the fact that at some point he decided to take action. HIs life was falling apart and he was probably depressed and searching for meaning and his brother showed him the "true" path, to which DT followed willingly, forming some of his own distorted views along the way. Trial (or sentencing hearing if no trial) may shed some light, but it's a complicated, tragic tale.

    Parent
    The quote in the article, (none / 0) (#5)
    by Mr Natural on Thu May 22, 2014 at 11:11:19 AM EST
    "As the note he wrote in Watertown on the inside of the boat reflects, Tsarnaev was eager to take credit for his crimes and 'shed some light' on their meaning. That indeed is a common practice among terrorists," the motion says.

    kinda makes the usual rationalization for torture look like complete bull$hit.

    But then, it always was.

    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#60)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 07:04:46 AM EST


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#61)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 07:04:57 AM EST


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#62)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Feb 12, 2021 at 07:05:13 AM EST


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#67)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 05, 2021 at 07:59:57 AM EST


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#68)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 05, 2021 at 08:00:09 AM EST


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#69)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 05, 2021 at 08:00:32 AM EST


    SITE VIOLATOR (none / 0) (#70)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Mar 05, 2021 at 08:00:47 AM EST