How should Tsarnaev be handled? Criminal or Enemy Combatant?

[jgoose71 0]

I heard on the news that he has not been read his Miranda Rights. This suggests that he may be treated as an enemy combatant.

If they go this route, they don't have to allow him to lawyer up and can turn him over for interrogation.

I don't think it's necessary though. I think we know the who and why. The only thing that is really missing is the "was anyone else involved." There probably was, but they are not in the states.

To me it's 6 of one, half-dozen of the other. I just want to know what everyone else thinks.

Besides, it's not like we can water-board these fucks any more...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[quade 3]

He's not going to be treated as an "enemy combatant."

He will be treated as a US Citizen, which is what he is. There is an exception allowed in reading Miranda Rights for exceptional cases such as this. That's what is currently happening.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/february2011/legal_digest

"Was anyone else involved" isn't the only remaining question. Clearly these guys loved bombs. The first immediate question is, "are there any more bombs?" Accomplices are a lower priority than the potential for more lives lost.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jgoose71 0]

The news is coming to me kind of slow at my location...

Yes, just figured out that it's Lindsey Graham who's calling for this kid to be held as an Enemy combatant. Also did not know about the "Public Safety" Exemption to the Miranda rule.

Either way, still interested to hear what people have to say on the subject...

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[ianmdrennan 2]

I hope they hold him as a criminal. I'm not a believer in 'enemy combatant' as it circumvents due process. US Citizens, regardless of their crimes should be subject to the judicial system.

This kid, no matter what they call him - isn't getting away with this.

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Gravitymaster 0]

Should he be allowed to Lawyer up?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Should he be allowed to Lawyer up?

Surprised anyone could even ask that question.

Citizen, right to a trial, etc etc etc...it all applies here.
Extent of personal and public outrage is not cause to bypass the law.

This whole thread is goofy.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[ryoder 1,397]

Quote

Quote

Should he be allowed to Lawyer up?

Surprised anyone could even ask that question.

Citizen, right to a trial, etc etc etc...it all applies here.
Extent of personal and public outrage is not cause to bypass the law.

This whole thread is goofy.

Correct.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Should he be allowed to Lawyer up?

Surprised anyone could even ask that question.

Citizen, right to a trial, etc etc etc...it all applies here.
Extent of personal and public outrage is not cause to bypass the law.

This whole thread is goofy.

Considering the government is invoking this:

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/20/17832252-whats-next-the-interrogation-of-the-boston-bombing-suspect?lite

it seems like a very valid question to ask.

[ianmdrennan 2]

Quote

Should he be allowed to Lawyer up?

He should have the same rights in the judicial system as anyone else.

He will, undoubtedly, be found guilty but I'm not a fan of circumventing the judicial system simply for convenience, or any other reason. It's a system of checks and balances in place for a reason. As soon as you start making exceptions then it becomes easier and easier to do so in the future. To me, the whole 'enemy combatant' thing sets a dangerous legal precedent. I'd be curious to hear LawRockets point of view on this.

Ian

Performance Designs Factory Team

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Should he be allowed to Lawyer up?

He should have the same rights in the judicial system as anyone else.

He will, undoubtedly, be found guilty but I'm not a fan of circumventing the judicial system simply for convenience, or any other reason. It's a system of checks and balances in place for a reason. As soon as you start making exceptions then it becomes easier and easier to do so in the future. To me, the whole 'enemy combatant' thing sets a dangerous legal precedent. I'd be curious to hear LawRockets point of view on this.

Ian

I agree. It disturbs me that the government is suspending his Miranda rights without any apparent oversite. If there was some type of public safety issue that could be proven, I would prefer that they have a Judge issue the order. I don't like that the Justice Department or even local law enforcement can subjectively suspend his rights.

[oldwomanc6 38]

He IS a US citizen, so I'm not sure how that would work, unless one of the charges was treason or something along the lines of that. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't see that happening.

Treason has been charged before and the convicted were executed, but they probably don't need that to convict and execute (if they take the fed route), so it doesn't really make sense.

As far as him not being Mirandized (sp?), why take the chance that this will be thrown out? Lawyers are going to be all over this, and I would not be surprised if some come and volunteer to defend this POS, rather than letting a PD defend him.


eta: I also wouldn't be surprised if funds magically appear to handle his defense.

lisa
WSCR 594
FB 1023
CBDB 9

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I agree. It disturbs me that the government is suspending his Miranda rights without any apparent oversite. If there was some type of public safety issue that could be proven, I would prefer that they have a Judge issue the order. I don't like that the Justice Department or even local law enforcement can subjectively suspend his rights.

His rights still exist. Nothing is suspended. The point of the Quarles exception is to ask about imminent threats to public safety. He still has his Miranda for every other kind of question. Think of the 4th amendment. There are exemptions. Motor vehicle, abandoned property, etc. the gov using one of them doesn't diminish your other rights, or the rest of 4A protections.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I agree. It disturbs me that the government is suspending his Miranda rights without any apparent oversite. If there was some type of public safety issue that could be proven, I would prefer that they have a Judge issue the order. I don't like that the Justice Department or even local law enforcement can subjectively suspend his rights.

His rights still exist. Nothing is suspended. The point of the Quarles exception is to ask about imminent threats to public safety. He still has his Miranda for every other kind of question. Think of the 4th amendment. There are exemptions. Motor vehicle, abandoned property, etc. the gov using one of them doesn't diminish your other rights, or the rest of 4A protections.

I don't disagree that when public safety is an issue that an exemption is in order. I would just prefer that law enforcement be required to have a Judge issue the exemption.

[Kennedy 0]

SCOTUS created the exemption. Judges review it's use. The entire idea is to discover or defuse IMMINENT threats to public safety. They are not going to insert a judge or hearing before allowing questioning. Also, the use of the exemption will be reviewed by a judge, and if it was improper, a judge will exclude the questions. Too broad a use will lead to SCOTUS reviewing their ruling.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Gravitymaster 0]

I did not know that. Thanks for the explanation.

[Kennedy 0]

Happy to help.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

I don't even think "enemy combatants" should be treated as "enemy combatants". Assuming they're subject to US jurisdiction, they're either (a) criminal defendants subject to the jurisdiction of the civilian criminal courts, and accorded all thus-applicable Constitutional rights, or they're (b) prisoners of war, subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

IMPO, having either studied, practiced or taught US Constitutional law for over 30 years, there is no 3rd category" called "enemy combatant" cognizable under the US Constitution. It is a fiction, created originally by the Bush Administration after 9/11 (and maintained by the Obama Admin), to deliberately evade both the US Constitution and the Geneva Convention. Shame on any and every US lawyer or judge who professionally opines, rules, legislates or executive-orders otherwise. They're not worthy of their licenses to practice law.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

I don't even think "enemy combatants" should be treated as "enemy combatants". Assuming they're subject to US jurisdiction, they're either (a) criminal defendants subject to the jurisdiction of the civilian criminal courts, and accorded all thus-applicable Constitutional rights, or they're (b) prisoners of war, subject to the provisions of the Geneva Convention.

The problem is that the Geneva Convention specifically limits its protections to soldiers with certain characteristics. Uniform, insignia, etc. What do you do with non citizen attackers who go after US targets outside US jurisdiction?
It's irrelevant to this case; the bomber in custody is a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil; criminal proceedings are in order (I'd rather discuss why he was given citizenship, but everyone seems to be glossing over that)

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The problem is that the Geneva Convention specifically limits its protections to soldiers with certain characteristics. Uniform, insignia, etc. What do you do with non citizen attackers who go after US targets outside US jurisdiction?

Assuming the detainee is exclusively subject to US jurisdiction, and not the jurisdiction of another sovereign nation, either (a) or (b). There is no "neither"; there is no "something else". If one is foreclosed, then by the simple definition of process-of-elimination, it must be the other. Period.

[kallend 1,644]

Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) said Tsarnaev "clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status" in a statement posted to Graham's website.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rickjump1 0]

During WWII, German American saboteurs were tried by a military commisson courtesty of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. American lawyers attempted to try them in civil court, but the Supreme Court of the United States in Exparte Quinn, upheld the use of military commissions. Eight were sentenced to death including two American Citizens. Ultimately, two escaped death; one being an American, but the rest were executed. Citizen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[jakee 1,257]

Quote

Should he be allowed to Lawyer up?

Why shouldn't he?

Edit: never mind, covered already.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Kennedy 0]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

And the difference is they were acting on behalf of, and under the direction of, another nation.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

During WWII, German American saboteurs were tried by a military commisson courtesty of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. American lawyers attempted to try them in civil court, but the Supreme Court of the United States in Exparte Quinn, upheld the use of military commissions. Eight were sentenced to death including two American Citizens. Ultimately, two escaped death; one being an American, but the rest were executed. Citizen.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Pastorius

Sometimes the Supreme Court rules shamefully, reflecting the emotions of the times. The Quirin case was one of those times.

They should have been tried for espionage in civilian court. (@Kennedy: all espionage is presumably on behalf and/or at the direction of another country. Doesn't make a difference, IMPO.)

Under US jurisdiction, there is no legitimate excuse for trying civilians by military tribunals, but there is a reason, and it's always the same reason: because they're afraid that a conviction might not be as guaranteed in a civilian court than in a military one. Oh, they'll couch it in terms of protecting the secrecy of classified evidence. It's bullshit. It's happened before, and if you live long enough, you'll see it happened again. Don't be suckered by it.

[Kennedy 0]

What about when it goes from espionage (theft of info) to physical attacks? Not all attacks on people and property are attributed to foreign powers.
Not necessarily disagreeing, just asking your view point.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*