Side effects of the Boston bombing

The Boston bombings could still claim many more victims: Islamists and immigrants in the U.S.

American politicians and mainstream media wasted no time in linking the attack to Al Qaeda or another similar movement.

However, there is not a single indication that points in that direction.

On the contrary: there is plenty of evidence to contradict it.

The very rudimentary nature of the bomb, which could be made based on instructions from jihadist websites, is not typical of the technical sophistication of Bin Laden's followers.

The terrorists behaved like the most inexperienced amateurs. Instead of fleeing the scene of the crime, they stayed there, in full view of the numerous security cameras and TVs, focused on the marathon's finish line.

In the following days, instead of remaining hidden, they went to rob a convenience store, drawing the attention of the police.

To conclude this comedy of errors, the two actors didn't have a getaway car; they preferred to rob a driver, tell him their sinister future plans, and let him go in search of the nearest police officer.

No terrorist organization would be so incompetent as to plan and carry out an attack in a way that would be, shall we say, typical of not-so-bright teenagers.

Another point worth remembering is the absence of the traditional manifesto, through which terrorist organizations usually claim responsibility for the act, presenting their reasons.

Philip Mudd, former deputy director of the CIA, also believes that Al Qaeda was unlikely to be behind the Boston bombing. He stated with the authority of his experience in dealing with attacks: "I would prosecute these kids as murderers, not terrorists."

Politicians and the media disagree with him.

It's strange, since they never used the word "terrorist" to refer to the perpetrators of the four mass murders committed in the US this decade, three of which occurred in the last two years.

In the Tucson attack, 19 people were wounded by gunfire, and 6 died; in an Aurore movie theater, 70 people were shot, with 12 deaths; at Sandy Hook Elementary School, 26 people were shot dead (20 were children); at Columbine High School, the perpetrators used firearms and bombs to kill 12 students and 1 teacher.

In none of these cases did almost anyone in the media or in politics call the killers "terrorists." A peculiar detail: none of the killers were Muslim.

For now, there is nothing to suggest that the Boston crime constitutes terrorism.

An anonymous informant reportedly said that the surviving brother had stated the motive for the attack was hatred of American wars.

It might be true, but it's not enough to be certain. Besides the fact that anonymity doesn't mean much, it's hard to believe that simply by moving their head (the killer is unable to speak), someone could provide reliable information.

In any case, even before the media reported this news, they were already talking about terrorism.

Now, in the US, that word evokes the most sinister and frightening associations: violent crimes committed by Arabs and other Muslims against unsuspecting Americans.

Obviously, when you bring Al Qaeda or some similar organization into the picture, the specter becomes even more dangerous.

The fear campaign, instigated by the media, politicians, and televangelists since 9/11, has been highly effective.

Today, perhaps the biggest nightmare for the average American is being a victim of actions by some Islamic terrorist movement.

The accusation that the Boston criminals were linked to Al Qaeda triggered the start of a witch hunt in the United States.

The fact that the murderous brothers were Chechens broadened the scope of this hunt. In addition to Arabs and Muslims in general, all immigrants became targets.

The idea is being spread that the Boston bombing showed that national security is flawed and needs to be strengthened to protect citizens from the threat of terrorism.

Republican Senator Peter King has called for all immigrants, especially Muslims, to be spied on by the police.

Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of New York City, declared that the Constitution needs to be changed to guarantee greater security for the people.

Republican Senator Chuck Hassler wants to tighten immigration reform.

Senator Lindsey Graham proposes that Obama ignore the Constitution and prosecute Tsarnaev as an "enemy combatant," meaning through military courts, in a secret trial, without a lawyer, and potentially resulting in a death sentence.

On her Twitter account, conservative leader Amy Coulter stated that illegal immigrants could be terrorists.

The idea of ​​further increasing security is very serious in the US because it implies a reduction in civil liberties, which are already largely ignored.

At the initiative of the Obama administration, the US president now has the right to order the arrest of whomever he sees fit. And, without trial, to keep the citizen imprisoned indefinitely.

Both Bush and Obama are responsible for the drone strikes that kill both suspected terrorists and innocent civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Somalia. The victims are on a "death list" compiled by Obama and his advisors.

People's phone calls, emails, and internet communications are subject to being wiretapped by authorities without the need for a court order.

Whistleblowers of government crimes, inefficiencies, and irregularities are being prosecuted as criminals by the Department of Justice.

All these measures characterize a totalitarian state, not a democracy governed by laws.

However, the government—and by this word we mean the Executive, Legislative, and Armed Forces—never misses an opportunity to curtail the right of citizens to oppose its actions, using security as a pretext.

The goal is to increase control over the population.

The presentation of the attack as a terrorist crime, likely linked to secret organizations, heightens citizens' concerns about their safety, even though the chances of being hit by a bomb are minimal.

And it makes it easier to introduce laws that violate civil rights.

"Those who would give up essential liberties to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," said Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States.

Nowadays, these kinds of ideas have gone out of fashion in the White House and in both houses of Congress.