GOP push to name bomber "enemy combatant"

[RuralEngineer]

The GOP are pushing to have the Boston bomber named an enemy combatant in order to avoid having to Mirandize him and to get access to indefinite detention. Problem is he's a naturalized citizen apparently.

Disturbing in the extreme. In this case the evidence against him is strong, but that's not always going to be the case. These kinds of designations become more liberally applied over time, not less.

[rocketdog]

Alan Dershowitz disagrees with not reading the suspect his Miranda rights:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dersho ... /id/500588

I agree with him.  Not reading the suspect his Miranda rights will only open the door for a defense attorney to have any testimony he gives thrown out, or at least brought into question in the jury's minds.  A good defense attorney will use any anomaly to his or her advantage. 

[Pointedstick]

i tend to agree, bad idea not reading him his rights, he is a citizen treat him like one, to do otherwise sets a terrible legal precedent..

i thought under the loophole they are citing they can only ask a few questions, directly related to intimidate threat, then the loophole is closed and he has to be read his rights?

In the end they do what they feel they can get away with, irrespective of what law or document says what. I think it's reflective on us as a people that we're so willing to forget our principles and let the government run roughshod over the rights we say we cherish when they're claimed by those we don't like.

[clacy]

I'm a GOP'er mostly, but I think it is not a good idea if citizens can be classified as enemy combatants. 

Slippery slope type of thing,  that could be used against those that are anti-government, yet not foreign terrorists.

[moda0306]

Part of me gets real scared when we do these kinds of legal meanders.  But from a perspective of individual sovereignty I have trouble with classifying non-citizens differently than citizens.  It just doesn't rub right on a fundamental level.

[Xan]

Terrible idea to classify a citizen this way.  Perhaps he shouldn't have been made a citizen?  In any case, though, it's not as if his rights go away simply because the cops didn't read them to him.  For the great majority of the country's history, those rights were there, but reading them at the time of arrest wasn't required.  Does anybody doubt that this guy could have recited the Miranda spiel from memory?

[Reub]

What if that citizen is part of an international terrorism plot and has information that could possibly save hundreds of lives?

[Pointedstick]

What if that citizen is part of an international terrorism plot and has information that could possibly save hundreds of lives?

Do you trust them to make that determination accurately? We all know the government is so competent. 

It's pretty clear that any government has the power to potentially do a lot of good. But I think one of the cornerstones of the American system was an unusual focus on preventing the negative consequences of when government messes up by hamstringing it from taking those actions. That's why the whole Bill of Rights is all about things the government can't do to you. Sure would be nicer for police if they never needed a warrant and could search everyone whenever they wanted, and I bet it would save a lot of legal expenses if they could beat "confessions" out of suspects.

But these protections exist for a reason. Exceptions made for the clearly guilty have a way of being applied to others eventually, so don't be so quick to throw them out when we've got a "bad guy." They'd be calling you a bad guy too if they ever wanted to go after you...

[dkalder]

And so once again the terrorists have been successful.

Successful in eroding civil and human rights as they intended, destroying the superiority of a society being born in and evolved since the Age of Enlightenment. And having a "nice", helping hand of their terrorist "brothers" on the other side of the fence makes it possible.

If I could decide, I would challenge everyone trying to actually implement (just talking about it is free speech) an obliteration of the fundamental citizen rights with treason on the principles of liberty and your constitution. But as we all know, the autocracy is already inside with more than just a foot.

[Reub]

Yes, the terrorists have been very successful because they have a very good business model. The question is how do we defeat that model?

[Pointedstick]

Yes, the terrorists have been very successful because they have a very good business model. The question is how do we defeat that model?

Stop caring? These clowns killed three people. More than that died in car accidents across the USA in the last hour. It's noise. Just like with liberals and mass shootings, these rare, shocking events have a tendency to terrify us, but we need to put it in perspective. It's not worth uprooting our way of life and throwing away our freedoms due to extremely rare events.

[Reub]

I don't believe that stopping to care is a viable option.

[rocketdog]

What I want to know is, Where is the outcry for pressure cooker control???  Clearly we need to implement background checks on anyone purchasing a pressure cooker, yet I haven't heard a peep from the media. 

[Pointedstick]

I don't believe that stopping to care is a viable option.

...said the Democrats about gun control.

Just sayin'.

[moda0306]

What I want to know is, Where is the outcry for pressure cooker control???  Clearly we need to implement background checks on anyone purchasing a pressure cooker, yet I haven't heard a peep from the media.

Well since pressure cookers are primarily used as non lethal tools, and not killing tools, there's a ton of productive use out there that society would have to do without.

Guns, on the other hand, are specifically tools designed to kill others, and depending on the gun, sometimes many people very efficiently.  Some offer very little defensive utility above and beyond their more vanilla counterparts.  There clearly is a very different cost/benefit calculation associated with a productive asset modifiable to a weapon (as almost anything can be), and something designed in and of itself to very quickly dispatch large numbers of people, with little productive core benefit.

Of course, this is probably a thread hijack, so we may want to move this discussion elsewhere, though it's likely already been had ad nausium.

[WiseOne]

It's not TOO far off topic...

I find the idea of classifying an American citizen as an "enemy combatant" disturbing too.  Not too surprising though...throwing principles out the window is what pretty much all politicians are all about, regardless of how insistently they blab about freedom, the Constitution, etc.  I find the GOP more hypocritical than the Democrats in this respect, but trust neither of them.

The civilian courts can handle this just fine.  Additionally, I do wonder if the prosecutors shouldn't take into account his age, and that he probably wasn't the primary instigator.  If he were pushed into a military court or sent into the limbo of Guantanamo indefinitely, those things would go by the wayside.

[moda0306]

Suspect Charged in Bombing Case

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said on Monday Boston bombing suspect Dzokhar Tsarnaev will not be tried as an enemy combatant.

Hopefully, neocons' heads are not filled with BBs and nails.

I see what you did there.  Nicely played...

[Ad Orientem]

I guess the question here is do you trust the government to decide when they will and will not abide by the Constitution and respect your civil rights? Speaking only for myself, HELL NO!

Give the boy a lawyer and his day in court. And then hang him.

[Pointedstick]

Reub, what problem do you see that you are proposing to solve? From my perspective, the system worked like it should: we caught the bad guy, we're going to interrogate him, then try him in court, most likely find him guilty, and probably give him the death penalty.

What about this process seems objectionable to you?

[RuralEngineer]

Reub, what problem do you see that you are proposing to solve? From my perspective, the system worked like it should: we caught the bad guy, we're going to interrogate him, then try him in court, most likely find him guilty, and probably give him the death penalty.

What about this process seems objectionable to you?

PS,

My understanding is that he won't be eligible for the death penalty without the enemy combatant designation. I could be wrong.

Reub,

How do you propose we interrogate him for info regarding other terrorist activities?  He's a citizen. Even if he wasn't, Obama banned anything beyond a light tickle for enemy combatants. Actually now that I think about it I think the tickle was dropped in favor of milk and cookies.

In short, there's nothing that can be done that can't be asked of this guy in the course of his trial.

[RuralEngineer]

My understanding is that he won't be eligible for the death penalty without the enemy combatant designation. I could be wrong.

Tsarnaev faces death penalty.

Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was charged today with using a weapon of mass destruction in the April 15 attacks that ripped through a crowd at the finish line of the world-renowned race, killing three people and injuring scores of others

Tsarnaev’s initial court appearance was conducted today by a federal magistrate judge in his hospital room. Tsarnaev was able to respond to inquiries, nodding yes and at one point saying, “No,”? according to a transcript of the hearing. A person familiar with the proceeding said Tsarnaev had mouthed the word.

Tsarnaev also faces a charge of malicious destruction of property resulting in death. The charges carry the possibility of the death penalty or life in prison for the 19-year-old Cambridge man, who is listed in serious condition at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center after suffering multiple gunshot wounds before his capture by police on Friday.

I had read an earlier story that postulated that Massachusetts' lack of a death penalty would get him off the hook but I guess the "weapon of mass destruction" must be a federal charge. Glad I was wrong.

[Ad Orientem]

There are actually quite a few Federal charges that carry a possible death sentence. One that I am somewhat surprised has not been mentioned to my knowledge is treason. The suspect is a naturalized citizen. He voluntarily swore an oath of allegiance to this country. I think a strong case could be made that his alleged crimes meet the definition of treason.

[Pointedstick]

That's a great point, especially if it turns out he was working for a real, actual terrorist organization.

[RuralEngineer]

Treason is a joke. If Bradley Manning isn't going to get charged then why bother with this guy?  I knew we had all forgotten what treason meant when celebrities could go pose for propaganda photos with enemy soldiers during war time and face no consequences (Hanoi Jane Fonda).

In short, treason has become utterly meaningless. Never again will anyone face any serious consequences for treason unless their actions cause mass casualties, in which case the treason charge is redundant as it is in the Boston bomber case.

[Ad Orientem]

Treason is a joke. If Bradley Manning isn't going to get charged then why bother with this guy?  I knew we had all forgotten what treason meant when celebrities could go pose for propaganda photos with enemy soldiers during war time and face no consequences (Hanoi Jane Fonda).

In short, treason has become utterly meaningless. Never again will anyone face any serious consequences for treason unless their actions cause mass casualties, in which case the treason charge is redundant as it is in the Boston bomber case.

Hanoi Jane wasn't brought up on charges because of the political reality of the time. The war was extremely unpopular and it is doubtful if they could have gotten a jury to convict her. A treason trial would have torn the country apart.

Manning is a different story. Nothing he did comes close to meeting the definition of treason.

SECTION 3. Clause 1. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open court.

Wikileaks may be a pain in the ass but it is not at war with the United States. And then there is the problem of the required witnesses. There really aren't any. Manning is guilty of disclosing classified information. He should be jailed and dishonorably discharged. But that's not treason.

The only legal argument against a treason charge for our alleged Boston bomber would be that the United States has not been in a formal state of war with anyone since 1945. But most legal scholars don't think that high bar needs to be met. Setting off bombs in a major city as part of a global campaign against America I think would more than meet the constitutional bar.