Author Topic: Boston Bomber's legal status. Enemy combatant? (Read 12476 times)

sqlbullet · « **Reply #50 on:** April 22, 2013, 04:42:54 pm »

What T said.

WeTheArmed.com

coelacanth · « **Reply #51 on:** April 22, 2013, 04:55:11 pm »

Loughner and Holmes were not operating under the broad blanket of "sanity" much less under any foreign control or influence AFAIK. Given what we know about the Tsarnaev brothers it seems likely that there was or is involvement with an outside force or influence. That may or may not turn out be be true but the activities of Al Quaeda, the Taliban in the Arabian Peninsula, CAIR, HAMAS, Hezbollah, the Muslim Brotherhood are well known and most if not all these groups are sponsors of terrorist activities. Most if not all support the subjugation of all world governments to Islamic authority. If a gunboat sailed into Boston harbor and lobbed an artillery shell into the city we would naturally expect the military to respond. I don't see a homicide bomb attack being different in any material way. If the gunboat was found to be manned by a mix of foreigners and Americans would it be any less an act of war?

There are conditions under which and actions which can result in the loss of American citizenship. I would submit that the Tsarnaev brothers have crossed that line - perhaps many times over. The older brother has been the subject of FBI investigation in the past and if news reports are to be believed was identified as a "person of interest" by a foreign government to federal officials. I don't know where we dropped the ball or why in this instance - perhaps we still aren't good enough at "connecting the dots" as was found in the report of the 9-11 commission.

For the record, I do NOT support the intrusion of the U.S. military into matters reserved for the civilian justice system. What I do support is the recognition that we are in an armed struggle. The military is fighting an asymmetric battle in Afghjanistan and it looks increasingly likely that we are involved in one here at home. An Islamic radical with no affiliation other than his own terrorist group is dealt with by the military elsewhere in the world as an enemy combatant. If that radical brings the battlefield to the territory of the United States I see no obstacle, legal or otherwise to letting the military deal with that threat in a similar fashion. Unless of course you wish to leave that to the milita.

Thernlund · « **Reply #52 on:** April 22, 2013, 05:31:24 pm »

I wish to leave it to our criminal justice system where it belongs.

I didn't hear all this jackassery about citizenship and enemy combatant status when Tim McVeigh did his thing. He saw a trial, was convicted, and subsequently put to death. And he killed a LOT more women and children than the Tsarnaev brothers. The Tsarnaev's are clown hacks compared to Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols.

OHHHhhhh.... but Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is Muslim. Ahhhhh! Well then, that's different! So now it's ok to strip him of due process afforded every other American citizen. He's the exception! I know... let's put him in a sack, bury him up to his chest, and throw rocks at him until he's dead! Might as well. As long as we're throwing out every other part of our justice system, why not just take that one last step? They do it everywhere else in the world, don't they?!

I admit that I'm getting pretty damn angry here, and I find it sickening that these kinds of debates are even happening; that there's even a question to as if an American citizen should be afforded his due process under the 5th and 14th Amendments. It's absolutely disgusting.

I'll leave it at this and reply no more: I pray that the people calling for him to be stripped of his right to due process and his citizenship don't get their way. Because if they do, and we cast aside everything we hold dear out of an emotional reaction, this nation is lost.

-T.

LoneStarNational · « **Reply #53 on:** April 22, 2013, 05:37:02 pm »

(Edit: T squeezed his post in ahead of mine. I'm not responding to his, but several posts preceding his)

Maybe, but some things are more important than "making sure the bad guy gets what's coming". Like protecting the soul of our nation.

Here's what I've never understood-

If a boat full of terrorists (since you used a gunboat analogy) showed up on the coast and said "we're going to invade with the goal of screwing up your court system and undermining due process," I'd bet good money that thousands if not millions of American patriots would show up to fight and pay with their blood and lives to defend our liberty.

Those same terrorists show up and say "We're going to plant a couple of pissant pipe bombs and kill half a dozen people or so, and the only way you can stop us is to compromise your values and undermine the Fifth Amendment and punish people without concern for due process," and we start tripping over each other in the race to be first to call for the terrorist suspect to be punished outside the usual legal system. This is the ONLY reason to classify him an enemy combatant-to deprive him of the due process and protections afforded to those accused of crimes.

When DiFi calls for a gun ban, ultra-conservatives spout off about "those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both", or however it goes, but as soon as there's a terrorist, they get all hard-ass about it and start trading in liberties for national security, all just so they can show that they've got a bigger jimdog than the terrorists.

I mean, c'mon. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

Harm · « **Reply #54 on:** April 22, 2013, 05:38:43 pm »

Haven't they already won with him declared an enemy combatant?

coelacanth · « **Reply #55 on:** April 22, 2013, 06:14:54 pm »

T, not trying to light your fuse. Seriously. You do, however, seem to be skipping over a good bit of what I posted and picking an issue to hang your hat on. I do not think having the military question Mr. Tsarnaev about the possibility of preventing subsequent attacks or his association with known terrorist groups is an abridgement of his constitutional rights. As I said before, if he is found to be a "lone wolf" or perhaps just under the influence of his older brother with no other outside influence he should be turned over to the civilian authorities immediately. Certainly none of what he said to a military interrogator would be admissable in a civilian court.

As far as his religion is concerned, if he were to be tried under some tenets of sharia law perhaps he would be treated as you suggested. My point is only to recognize that we face a known threat from elements of Islam. They are organized into military units in many parts of the world and clandestine terror cells where it would be unwise to operate openly. Their stated goal is the eradication of at least one nation, the subjugation of every other religion and all world government under the control of an Islamic "caliphate". They are known to use whatever means or tactics available to them to inflict death and destruction to anyone they oppose both military and civilian. They are at war with us whether we acknowledge that fact or not.

For the record, I don't consider either of us to be jackasses. I didn't propose or write the law regarding citizenship and its revocation. Its actually pretty hard to get that revoked - you have to work at it. It seems that at least one of the Tsarnaev brothers did just that.

As far as the Oklahoma City bombing, yes, a terrible day but subsequent investigation showed that McVeigh and Nichols were not involved with other co-conspirators foreign or domestic despite rumors to the contrary. They had their day in court, were found guilty and sentenced in accord with our laws. Laws which I hold no less dear than you do.

I regret that this discussion has made you angry. That was not my intent. The feeling is certainly not mutual.

Thernlund · « **Reply #56 on:** April 22, 2013, 06:27:28 pm »

Quote from: coelacanth on April 22, 2013, 06:14:54 pm

I regret that this discussion has made you angry. That was not my intent. The feeling is certainly not mutual.

I'm angry that the nation is having this debate. Not angry at you. I'm upset at the larger idea out there that we should actually proceed differently somehow with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev than we would with any other murdering criminal scum. I submit that if we allow his ilk to change the way we do business, he/they win(s).

While I see how my commentary may have looked personally directed, trust that it wasn't.

-T.

luke213(adamsholsters) · « **Reply #57 on:** April 22, 2013, 06:32:21 pm »

I'm not really angry we're having a debate on this, really there are circumstances where I can see someone being treated as an enemy combatant however I don't think this is one of them.

Luke

coelacanth · « **Reply #58 on:** April 22, 2013, 06:36:16 pm »

Quote from: LoneStarNational on April 22, 2013, 05:37:02 pm

(Edit: T squeezed his post in ahead of mine. I'm not responding to his, but several posts preceding his)

Maybe, but some things are more important than "making sure the bad guy gets what's coming". Like protecting the soul of our nation.

Here's what I've never understood-

If a boat full of terrorists (since you used a gunboat analogy) showed up on the coast and said "we're going to invade with the goal of screwing up your court system and undermining due process," I'd bet good money that thousands if not millions of American patriots would show up to fight and pay with their blood and lives to defend our liberty.

Those same terrorists show up and say "We're going to plant a couple of pissant pipe bombs and kill half a dozen people or so, and the only way you can stop us is to compromise your values and undermine the Fifth Amendment and punish people without concern for due process," and we start tripping over each other in the race to be first to call for the terrorist suspect to be punished outside the usual legal system. This is the ONLY reason to classify him an enemy combatant-to deprive him of the due process and protections afforded to those accused of crimes.

When DiFi calls for a gun ban, ultra-conservatives spout off about "those who would trade liberty for safety deserve neither and will lose both", or however it goes, but as soon as there's a terrorist, they get all hard-ass about it and start trading in liberties for national security, all just so they can show that they've got a bigger jimdog than the terrorists.

I mean, c'mon. Is it too much to ask for a little consistency?

Thats a nice little straw man argument you've got going there, just don't attribute it to me because that is nothing like what I said. It seems to me the only reason to classify him as an enemy combatant would be probable cause and to determine if he is one. If so he probably has valuable intelligence information that could save a lot of death and destruction were it known. If not then turn him over to the civilian authorities for whatever crimes he committed against the people of the Commonwealth of Massachussetts. He can lawyer up tight as can be and none of the information he provided the military would be admissable in his civilian court procedings. If there is a problem there re: due process I just don't see it.

When you take up arms against the territory and people of the United States of America under the auspices of her enemies you have called your own citizenship into question and probably guaranteed yourself an additional level of scrutiny by those sworn to protect us.
I'm sorry if that rubs you the wrong way, thats just the way I see it. And for the record, next time you want to accuse me of inconsistency at least try to use my own words instead of the ones you made up for me.

coelacanth · « **Reply #59 on:** April 22, 2013, 06:38:19 pm »

Quote from: Thernlund on April 22, 2013, 06:27:28 pm

I'm angry that the nation is having this debate. Not angry at you. I'm upset at the larger idea out there that we should actually proceed differently somehow with Dzhokhar Tsarnaev than we would with any other murdering criminal scum. I submit that if we allow his ilk to change the way we do business, he/they win(s).

While I see how my commentary may have looked personally directed, trust that it wasn't.

-T.

NukMed · « **Reply #60 on:** April 22, 2013, 06:53:02 pm »

Terrorism isn't the crime. It's the motive.

Anyone can write a manifesto and make a list of demands. That's not the crime.

The crime is using murder, assault, and acts of destruction to bring to fruition your manifesto and have your demands met.

Did these guys make any demands? Did they make their motivations known? Did they (or some group they represent) take credit for the actions in question? I don't know, I haven't heard. Just asking.

For those who think that any act of terror makes one an "enemy combatant," consider this:
1) There are environmental groups who commit acts of vandalism and sabotage for their political agenda that result in deaths and injuries. Are they enemy combatants?
2) The murder of an abortion doctor specifically because he is an abortionist can be described as an act of terror. Is the shooter an enemy combatant?
3) How about groups that oppose whaling? There's a whole TV show dedicated to documenting the harassment and property destruction they perpetrate putting lives at risk for the sake of their agenda. Are they enemy combatants, too?
4) What about a mob hit? It would terrorize anyone who deals with organized crime. Would it make a difference if it were ordered from offshore (say, by the Italian or Russian mob)? Are these guys enemy combatants?

The point is that I believe it's a mistake to politicize motives. It leads to making thought and speech into crimes.

The real crime is the harm that is done to people and property.

LoneStarNational · « **Reply #61 on:** April 22, 2013, 07:19:21 pm »

Quote from: coelacanth on April 22, 2013, 06:36:16 pm

Thats a nice little straw man argument you've got going there, just don't attribute it to me because that is nothing like what I said.

You're right, I ran off a little straw-man on you. My apologies. Also, I was rather hurriedly replying from my smartphone while sitting on the crapper at work, so I was somewhat less thorough in my line by line analysis of the entirety of the previous discussion than I usually am. So I acknowledge that you did not say those things, and I will take this as a lesson to be more careful.

That said, I still think my comments stand as a valid criticism of the broader conversation initiated by Senators McCain and Graham. They (my comments) were inspired by your gunboat analogy.

More to your specific points-
Perhaps these two did do something deserving of the stripping of their citizenship. The obvious one is acting as agents of foreign enemies of the United States. If so, who? I posit that "the Muslim terrorists" is not a specific enough answer to go depriving folks of citizenship, or to make them enemy combatants. Even if we had a specific answer like "Al-Qaeda" or "Iran", is the Pandora's Box of declaring American citizens to be enemy combatants worth the risk to our national values, especially when we can get a perfectly good death sentence without it, and especially since there is already a mechanism to convict them of high treason through the normal system? If committing treason was supposed to be just cause for depriving one of rights, why provide for the criminal prosecution of treason in the Constitution?

coelacanth · « **Reply #62 on:** April 22, 2013, 07:20:09 pm »

Quote from: NukMed on April 22, 2013, 06:53:02 pm

Terrorism isn't the crime. It's the motive.

Anyone can write a manifesto and make a list of demands. That's not the crime.

The crime is using murder, assault, and acts of destruction to bring to fruition your manifesto and have your demands met.

Did these guys make any demands? Did they make their motivations known? Did they (or some group they represent) take credit for the actions in question? I don't know, I haven't heard. Just asking.

For those who think that any act of terror makes one an "enemy combatant," consider this:
1) There are environmental groups who commit acts of vandalism and sabotage for their political agenda that result in deaths and injuries. Are they enemy combatants?
2) The murder of an abortion doctor specifically because he is an abortionist can be described as an act of terror. Is the shooter an enemy combatant?
3) How about groups that oppose whaling? There's a whole TV show dedicated to documenting the harassment and property destruction they perpetrate putting lives at risk for the sake of their agenda. Are they enemy combatants, too?
4) What about a mob hit? It would terrorize anyone who deals with organized crime. Would it make a difference if it were ordered from offshore (say, by the Italian or Russian mob)? Are these guys enemy combatants?

The point is that I believe it's a mistake to politicize motives. It leads to making thought and speech into crimes.

The real crime is the harm that is done to people and property.

While I agree that making thought and speech into crimes is treading where we should not go, none of the groups you cite have done anything like what we have seen from Islamic jihadists. We did not politicize this situation - we simply recognized what the reality was. There is a crater where the World Trade Center buildings used to stand. One or more of the state sponsors of terrorism either have nuclear weapons or are developing them. This is not analagous to the examples you cite, IMHO.

If the jihadis were simply asking for ransom or a list of demands to be met that might be close to what you describe but that is not the case.

As I pointed out before, they seek the obliteration of at least one nation ( Israel ), the persecution of and subjugation of every other world religion and the eventual subjugation of every world government to an Islamic "caliphate".

This isn't something I dreamed up - it is their stated goal. To be achieved by any means necessary, for as long as it takes to succeed.

THAT is the motive. Terrorism is simply the tool.

coelacanth · « **Reply #63 on:** April 22, 2013, 07:34:34 pm »

Quote from: LoneStarNational on April 22, 2013, 07:19:21 pm

You're right, I ran off a little straw-man on you. My apologies. Also, I was rather hurriedly replying from my smartphone while sitting on the crapper at work, so I was somewhat less thorough in my line by line analysis of the entirety of the previous discussion than I usually am. So I acknowledge that you did not say those things, and I will take this as a lesson to be more careful.

That said, I still think my comments stand as a valid criticism of the broader conversation initiated by Senators McCain and Graham. They (my comments) were inspired by your gunboat analogy.

More to your specific points-
Perhaps these two did do something deserving of the stripping of their citizenship. The obvious ones are acting as agents of foreign enemies of the United States. If so, who? I posit that "the Muslim terrorists" is not a specific enough answer to go depriving folks of citizenship, or to make them enemy combatants. Even if we had a specific answer like "Al-Qaeda" or "Iran", is the Pandora's Box of declaring American citizens to be enemy combatants worth the risk to our national values, especially when we can get a perfectly good death sentence without it?

No apology necessary, but thanks.

I seem to have wet down more than one bowl of Cheerios with this discussion. You are correct - "the Muslim terrorists" is not specific enough. And yes, we may be able to "get a perfectly good death sentence without it." but not in Massachussetts and we certainly won't get any operable intel if the man's lawyer has anything to say about it and if we do it will become part of a court record open to public scrutiny - thereby reducing the value of said intel.

I also stand by the points I made in earlier posts about not wanting the military to intervene in civilian courts but I don't think that having an enemy combatant ( if that's what he turns out to be ) interrogated by them abrogates his right to due process. Rather, by being an enemy combatant ( even if you are a citizen ) you have insured yourself an additional level of scrutiny based solely upon your own actions.

I am not at all comfortable coming down on the same side of things as McCain and Graham but this isn't the first time I've stepped in something I had to clean off my shoe later.

And, typing while on the crapper is an impressive bit of multi-tasking.

I occasionally have to type with my feet to leave my hands free for beer and smokes.

Plebian · « **Reply #64 on:** April 23, 2013, 02:13:21 pm »

They must be tried as criminals, OR we are legitimizing them as soldiers of Islam. We are not fighting a war of arms here with another nation. We are fighting a war of ideals with a nebulous entity. In a war of ideals you choose your words and actions as carefully as you choose your weapons for armed conflict.

We must treat them as common street scum criminals to remove any pride they may gain being called combatants. If we label them enemy combatants we lose this battle. They can die proud being "Soldiers for Islam". We need to remove this pride and try the little buggers as common criminals.

booksmart · « **Reply #65 on:** April 23, 2013, 02:39:52 pm »

Which is what they're doing... https://wethearmed.com/general-non-firearms-discussion/all-hell-breaking-loose-in-boston/100/

LoneStarNational · « **Reply #66 on:** April 23, 2013, 06:06:30 pm »

And this is why we don't alter a suspects rights or designation just because the crime of which they are accused is associated with terrorism; this is why we must hold to "innocent until PROVEN guilty" no matter how heinous the crime- the government can in fact get it wrong.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/23/17880236-ricin-letter-suspect-released-fbi-searching-second-mississippi-mans-home?lite

Although all details are not out yet, the Ricin Suspect has been released, and they are investigating another man.

Edit: foxnews is now reporting that charges have been dropped.

qwert65 · « **Reply #67 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:00:12 pm »

I don't post here often, to me if one country is at war with another, and a citizen of country A says I'm siding with country B and attacks his country that is an enemy combatant( or a traitor in war time which is the same thing minus semantics)
Example, if during world war 2 some US citizen Nazis blew up a building that's war
If they did it in 2012 I'd say criminal case.
However, these guys openly sided with an enemy we are in a shooting war with and further acted on it. To me that's cut and dry.

scarville · « **Reply #68 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:05:16 pm »

Wait a minute. When did we declare war on Chechnya?

qwert65 · « **Reply #69 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:11:27 pm »

Apparently our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq motivated them(at least in part) to attack

booksmart · « **Reply #70 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:28:40 pm »

So far as I know, while there's no love for us in Chechnya, to my knowledge there's not the deep and abiding hate that we get from Iran either. Nor, to my knowledge, has the nation declared war on us.

There have been some Chechen terrorist plots against some other sporting events - one against the upcoming Sochi Winter Olympics (considered foiled), and another in Gibraltar, IIRC.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-21/chechen-conflict-spawned-terrorism-with-separatist-jihad

http://paktribune.com/news/Russias-Islamist-rebels-say-not-at-war-with-Washington-259346.html

LoneStarNational · « **Reply #71 on:** April 23, 2013, 11:49:57 pm »

Quote from: qwert65 on April 23, 2013, 11:00:12 pm

However, these guys openly sided with an enemy we are in a shooting war with and further acted on it. To me that's cut and dry.

Perhaps, but also, perhaps, we should permit them a trial by which to establish these facts, instead of just taking the FBI's word for it. They did just lock up the wrong Elvis in another "terrorist" attack.

booksmart · « **Reply #72 on:** April 24, 2013, 07:31:02 am »

Quote from: LoneStarNational on April 23, 2013, 11:49:57 pm

Perhaps, but also, perhaps, we should permit them a trial by which to establish these facts, instead of just taking the FBI's word for it. They did just lock up the wrong Elvis in another "terrorist" attack.

Well, to be fair the letters did include identical language to letters they had previously received from the guy - "I am KC and I approve this message," etc.

Which is why they picked him up so fast - he was a known entity.

LoneStarNational · « **Reply #73 on:** April 24, 2013, 08:36:33 am »

Quote from: booksmart on April 24, 2013, 07:31:02 am

Well, to be fair the letters did include identical language to letters they had previously received from the guy - "I am KC and I approve this message," etc.

Which is why they picked him up so fast - he was a known entity.

My post was criticizing the last guy's argument that its "cut and dry", and your rebuttal is essentially, "to be fair, it seemed cut and dry"? This is not a mitigating circumstance for law enforcement, rather, this is precisely my point. It was an entirely reasonable and obvious arrest, made, I'm sure, in good faith by entirely competent and well meaning cops.

And it was still wrong.

Which only strengthens the case for full due process and full legal rights, no matter how "sure" we are we got the right dirtbag.

If this poor guy had been Muslim, the Senators and the country would have be hollering to ship him off to Guantanamo or some CIA interrogation facility too. And they would have been wrong.

The Constitution can't do its job of protecting us from the government unless ALL of it applies ALL the time for EVERYBODY.

booksmart · « **Reply #74 on:** April 24, 2013, 10:33:51 am »

No need to yell, I agree with you.