Boston Bomber Dzhokar Tsarnaev ought to be declared an "enemy combatant" because "My God, they were
107 replies, posted
[quote](CNN) - As Boston celebrated the capture of a suspect in the marathon bombings Friday night, a debate erupted in Washington over whether military or civilian law would best handle Dzhokar Tsarnaev.
[B]“This guy didn’t rob a liquor store. He wasn’t working for the Mafia,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-South Carolina, said Saturday on Fox News. “My God, they were at war with us, we need to be at war within our values and within our laws.”[/B]
He and several other Republican lawmakers called on President Barack Obama and prosecutors at the Justice Department to treat Tsarnaev, at least initially, as an enemy combatant under military law – and without certain protections such as an attorney – rather than through the civilian courts as a criminal suspect, where his route begins with a reading of the Miranda rights. The designation as an “enemy combatant” has precedence and would be appropriate here, Graham and others say.
The hospitalized Tsarnaev is in federal custody, and prosecutors are preparing terrorism and possibly other charges against him, a Justice Department official told CNN. He could also face state-level murder charges, but the death penalty would not be an option under Massachusetts law. Federal authorities could pursue the death penalty.
Twelve hours after capture Tsarnaev had not been read those Miranda rights, which include the right to remain silent, the right to an attorney regardless of financial circumstances and the warning that any statements can be used to aid his prosecution.
A Justice Department official said federal prosecutors would use the public safety exception to the Miranda rule, which allows investigators to question a suspect before apprising him of his rights when they believe there is an imminent public safety threat.[B] Federal officials called in the interagency High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which includes investigators from the FBI and CIA who specialize in collecting intelligence from terrorism suspects, to question Tsarnaev.[/B]
After the Friday capture, Obama commended authorities’ efforts and said the surviving Tsarnaev would move through the court system.
[B]"When a tragedy like this happens, with public safety at risk and the stakes so high, it's important that we do this right,”[/B] he said. “That's why we have investigations. That's why we relentlessly gather the facts. That's why we have courts. And that's why we take care not to rush to judgment - not about the motivations of these individuals; certainly not about entire groups of people.”
[B]In addition to Graham, Republicans Sens. John McCain of Arizona and Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, joined by Republican Rep. Peter King of New York, commended investigators for not reading Tsarnaev the Miranda rights but said they were concerned investigators would soon do so.[/B]
“We have concerns that limiting this investigation to 48 hours and exclusively relying on the public safety exception to Miranda, could very well be a national security mistake. It could severely limit our ability to gather critical information about future attacks from this suspect,” they said.[/quote]
[url]http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/04/20/should-boston-bombing-suspect-get-a-miranda-warning-debate-follows-friday-capture/[/url]
except from the fact that calling him an 'enemy combatant' is a blatant lie
Oh republicans, you so silly.
1) Enemy Combatant is not correct because he has no true allegiance to a country (or maybe even an organization)
2) Wasn't he unconcious after climbing out of the boat? All of the pictures I've seen have a bag valve mask over him.
This is the problem here.
He's a horrible person and a murderer. He deserves everything he can get.
[I]However,[/I] that's to which is in the extent of the American justice system. [I]Not[/I] reclassifying him as an enemy so that you can do whatever you want to him. He's not an enemy soldier here.
You can't just switch out the rules whenever you want. Fuck "interest of public safety", all you're doing is moving the goal posts so that you can do whatever you want to him. I've probably worded this really badly.
All murders are now war criminals
When does murder become terrorism? Out of interest.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;40367064]When does murder become terrorism? Out of interest.[/QUOTE]
Whenever Republicans feel like it.
enemy combat from where? muslamistan?
"He was at war with us! This war started when he attacked us and ended when we caught him. That was [I]totally[/I] a war! Saying that we were at war with two people just so we can circumvent the rule of law [I]totally[/I] isn't insane and blatantly wrong, nope nope nope!"
What, are we going to start labeling drug users as enemy combatants too? They [I]are[/I] part of the war on drugs, after all! :downs:
One of the ways that was successful with dealing with the IRA, is to simply treat them like criminals, arsonists and murderers.
Do we even know why they did it yet? They might have just been crazy.
[QUOTE=Scot;40367090]Do we even know why they did it yet? They might have just been crazy.[/QUOTE]
Media keeps talking about the older brother's "recent radicalization of Islam" but nothing really conclusive.
Convenient that that's the dead of the two, as well.
[QUOTE=Occlusion;40367064]When does murder become terrorism? Out of interest.[/QUOTE]
That is a good question; what separates a murderer from a terrorist? Is it bound to ideology, or to methods? Would killing for a cause render someone a terrorist?
To me the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" seem rather hollow and overused to me; they're thrown around so much and used so liberally that I can't even take the words seriously anymore...
Also have there been any evaluations of his mental health? 'cause his sanity could be an important factor in determining exactly why the events in Boston actually happened.
[QUOTE=ironman17;40367143]That is a good question; what separates a murderer from a terrorist? Is it bound to ideology, or to methods? Would killing for a cause render someone a terrorist?
To me the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" seem rather hollow and overused to me; they're thrown around so much and used so liberally that I can't even take the words seriously anymore...[/QUOTE]
A murderer seeks to kill.
A terrorist seeks to terrorize.
Killing [I]can[/I] be terrorizing, but if that is not the goal in of itself, then it's just murder.
That's how I see it anyway.
[editline]21st April 2013[/editline]
And given that these bombs were, at least supposedly, meant to maim and not kill, I would assume that be an act of terrorism.
Still doesn't justify declaring them "enemy combatants", though.
What a bunch of horseshit. What makes someone an "enemy combatant"? Where is that line drawn? Where in our currently-existing laws does anything allowing for this exist, and why has this not been done before? Why wasn't Timothy McVeigh called an "enemy combatant"?
Sounds more like an excuse to be able to bring military forces to bear on dangerous people they don't like.
Don't cases often get thrown out because the rights are not read?
[QUOTE=ironman17;40367143]That is a good question; what separates a murderer from a terrorist? Is it bound to ideology, or to methods? Would killing for a cause render someone a terrorist?
To me the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" seem rather hollow and overused to me; they're thrown around so much and used so liberally that I can't even take the words seriously anymore...
Also have there been any evaluations of his mental health? 'cause his sanity could be an important factor in determining exactly why the events in Boston actually happened.[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure you become a terrorist when your harmful actions are done to promote a certain ideology through constant threats and, well, terror.
I'd assume under certain circumstances doing these actions with other people and thus forming a group would also qualify as terrorism.
I think there's also the factor that you are not especially targeting one person but instead an area with arbitrary casualties.
[QUOTE=ironman17;40367143]That is a good question; what separates a murderer from a terrorist? Is it bound to ideology, or to methods? Would killing for a cause render someone a terrorist?
To me the words "terrorist" and "terrorism" seem rather hollow and overused to me; they're thrown around so much and used so liberally that I can't even take the words seriously anymore...
Also have there been any evaluations of his mental health? 'cause his sanity could be an important factor in determining exactly why the events in Boston actually happened.[/QUOTE]
I took a class on terrorism and political violence and it's not an easy thing to define. It's terrorism when the violence occurs with intent to spread terror as a means or method to see policy (incl. religious, ideological, political, social) change. So if it was done for political reasons and intended to spread terror in order to change something, then it was terrorism. If it wasn't intended to spread terror or change something, then it was a random act of violence.
[QUOTE=ElectricSquid;40367186]What a bunch of horseshit. What makes someone an "enemy combatant"? Where is that line drawn? Where in our currently-existing laws does anything allowing for this exist, and why has this not been done before? Why wasn't Timothy McVeigh called an "enemy combatant"?
Sounds more like an excuse to be able to bring military forces to bear on dangerous people they don't like.[/QUOTE]
In this context, I think McVeigh had the luck of being white and not muslim.
[editline]21st April 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Chonch;40367188]Don't cases often get thrown out because the rights are not read?[/QUOTE]
His rights are being temporarily not read. They will be read eventually. The reason he hasn't been given them is so to find out first if there are any other bombs or threats. After that has been found a "no", his rights will be read to him.
[QUOTE=Chonch;40367188]Don't cases often get thrown out because the rights are not read?[/QUOTE]
It can happen but it's not a valid defense and hasn't been for a long time.
Plus, you don't have to be read your Miranda rights unless you are both being detained [I]and[/I] questioned, and so they don't have to read them to you when you're being arrested, only if you're being held in custody and being interrogated. If you're "free to go" but still being questioned, then no M rights. If you're arrested but not questioned, no M rights. If both, then M rights apply and need to be read or made obvious.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;40367156]Still doesn't justify declaring them "enemy combatants", though.[/QUOTE]
That is true; even if he IS an "enemy combatant", who is the enemy here? Who is the belligerent or insurgency with which he is affiliated? I heard there was more than one person involved in this plot, but that raises another question; how big does a group have to be to be recognised as an insurgency? 'cause I think it's usually bigger than two people, or are two people enough to count as an insurgency?
[QUOTE=ironman17;40367223]That is true; even if he IS an "enemy combatant", who is the enemy here? Who is the belligerent or insurgency with which he is affiliated? I heard there was more than one person involved in this plot, but that raises another question; how big does a group have to be to be recognised as an insurgency? 'cause I think it's usually bigger than two people, or are two people enough to count as an insurgency?[/QUOTE]
I'm willing to bet that Republicans will be more than happy to dub these two brothers a "terrorist organization" (one without a name, as well).
i'd like to visit gitmo one day
It is kind of technically correct- an "enemy combatant" as called over in Pakistan with the drone strikes and such is any person that was around the explosion and over the age of 18, so this does seem to be an oddly specific mark.
[QUOTE=Zambies!;40367038]1) Enemy Combatant is not correct because he has no true allegiance to a country (or maybe even an organization)
2) Wasn't he unconcious after climbing out of the boat? All of the pictures I've seen have a bag valve mask over him.[/QUOTE]
BVM's are common. They always use them if you're breathing under ~21 bpm.
He's naturalized, he deserves American justice because he is a citizen, and he deserves the fullest punishment available.
Of interesting note is that there is legal precedent in the Supreme Court that says that enemy combatants can be detained and questioned by tribunal without trial and that this goes back to the Civil War. So it's not like they're just pulling this out of their ass. Problem is that there's also precedent that says that natives not in a war zone, even acting in a war, must be tried by the regular courts so long as they are functioning.
The most pertinent case would probably by Hamdi v Rumsfeld where an American citizen in Afghanistan was taken custody as a combatant and held in Gitmo and then in Virginia without trial. Court said that because there was national security interests, we could suspend his due process to just the minimal amount, basically, but he still required a trial as a citizen.
So they can suspend his due process, including M rights, so long as they classify him as a combatant, which is ill defined.
[QUOTE='[Seed Eater];40367340']Of interesting note is that there is legal precedent in the Supreme Court that says that enemy combatants can be detained and questioned by tribunal without trial and that this goes back to the Civil War. So it's not like they're just pulling this out of their ass. Problem is that there's also precedent that says that natives not in a war zone, even acting in a war, must be tried by the regular courts so long as they are functioning.
The most pertinent case would probably by Hamdi v Rumsfeld where an American citizen in Afghanistan was taken custody as a combatant and held in Gitmo and then in Virginia without trial. Court said that because there was national security interests, we could suspend his due process to just the minimal amount, basically, but he still required a trial as a citizen.
So they can suspend his due process, including M rights, so long as they classify him as a combatant, which is ill defined.[/QUOTE]
In short, they can do whatever the fuck they want, because freedom is illusory, and you only get due process if you don't piss off the wrong people.
Terrorism is a large scale attack on a large scale of innocent victims.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.