How should Tsarnaev be handled? Criminal or Enemy Combatant?

[normiss 622]

Mcveigh was tried in federal court as a US citizen would be, standard civilian charges.
No military tribunal, no enemy combatant.

What was your point?

[mpohl 1]

Not too long ago the US would object to any form of torture. Then, torture was ok for enemy combatants. Now, we have law makers calling for torture of US citizens by civil authorities in the US.

WHAT'S NEXT!?


April 22, 2013
NY State Senator Calls for Torture in Boston Case
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) — A New York state senator is advocating torture to extract information from terror suspects including the suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing.

Republican Sen. Greg Ball of the Hudson Valley had taken heat for his Twitter posting Friday. He asked who wouldn't want to use torture against the second suspect in the Boston bombing.

He continued to push the position Monday in a tweet and a press release. He says he's not shy to join those who believe torture is justified in the war on terror to save lives.

He says that includes suspects apprehended in the United States by civil authorities.

Ball says the Boston incident shows this may be a new normal and American should see it as a wake-up call to use a different set of rules.

[airtwardo 6]

Quote

Quote

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...

If you want to wear a white hat, you have to follow the rules.

I have zero sympathy for the sonofabitch, but submit that the only valid approach is to let due process run its course.

This is to say, give him a scrupulously fair trial and hang him.


BSBD,

Winsor

Right or wrong...I can't believe the guy still has a pulse.

Preying on innocent, maining dozens & performing the murder trifecta - woman, child & cop.

They really wanted to 'debrief' this punk because there were an awful lot of well aimed weapons pointed at him.

Make federal & fry him...then bring me some popcorn.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[aphid 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it refreshing to see so many of us, regardless of political affiliations, agreeing on this topic. Seems to me that the majority, here at least, believe in due process and are against the idea of an 'enemy combatant' or at least (better stated) against the idea of stripping away rights and due process for ANY reason

I have many friends who complain in my country that our government is taking away our rights; we are being turned into second-class citizens; we are overtaxed, our healthcare system is broken; too many foreigners being allowed in that can’t speak English or French; they’re tired of dealing with Native land claims; welfare bums are screwing all us working-stiffs over. The list is nauseatingly endless.

When I suggest that if they feel that strongly they should take the time to become current with our many National issues and become engaged in the process. Write to their representatives in parliament, legislative assembly, or city. Become active with letters to news outlets. At the very least, participate with their ballot in every election at every level.

The common response is something to the effect that “They’re too big. They don’t listen. My vote doesn’t count.”

I encountered this attitude in private conversations with some of my southern friends during your last US presidential race. I’ve encountered it in conversations regarding the legislated denial of Constitutional rights in attempting to challenge US Customs allegations in a federal court of law.

What I’m (rhetorically) asking then is, with so many here claiming a desire to defend your Constitution, are you engaged in the process?

John

[ManagingPrime 0]

I'm reminded of a quote from the movie 'The Siege":

Quote

What if what they really want is for us to herd our children into stadiums like we're doing? And put soldiers on the street and have Americans looking over their shoulders? Bend the law, shred the Constitution just a little bit? Because if we torture him, General, we do that and everything we have fought, and bled, and died for is over. And they've won. They've already won!

[quade 3]

Was just charged and will not be tried as "enemy combatant."
http://m.apnews.com/ap/pm_5073/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=wGkuIYES

We can move on now.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

The underlying logic is that citizens are given Constitutional rights and non-citizens are not, which is a frightening encroachment that is coming from somewhere and I assure you it is not the tea Party.

It's not coming from the Tea Party because there is no such party. It is, however, coming from the Republican Party.

Let's run off the jurisdictions involved in this:
(1) City of Boston - Mayor benino (D)
(2) County of Suffolk - Sheriff Andrea Cabral (D)
(3) State of Massachusetts - Governor Deval Patrick (D)
(4) Unites States: President Barack Obama (D)

Now - all it takes is ONE of those government agencies to ensure the protection of the suspect's rights. I cannot see how anyone can credibly argue right-wing involvement in the administration of law enforcement in this.

With regard to future policies - yep, the GOP is using this to attack immigration the same way the Dems use incidents to attack guns. Between the GOP and Dems, we have a full assault on everything.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rickjump1 0]

McVeigh had no connection to any foreign movement we are at war with. Some are trying to compare McVeigh with what the Boston Marathon jihadists did. I think there is a distinct difference.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Between the GOP and Dems, we have a full assault on everything.

This is about all politicians. That's the only reason I took exception to the partisan slant above. The overall trend is freaky/scary and shouldn't be diverted by the old right vs left distractions.

...
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

[lawrocket 3]

[Reply]On the contrary, trying Jihadists in a civil court is just what islamic jihadists would like. There are billions of dollars in middle eastern banks on American soil available to "indefinitely" defend soldiers of allah. The muslim brotherhood or other "peaceful" muslims have their own lawyers. They would love to use our system against us in lawsuits and delays.

[quade 3]

Charges have been filed.

Quote

"He will not be treated as an enemy combatant," said White House spokesman Jay Carney.

You can all stop debating how they "should be" handled.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22257451#TWEET731151

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[regulator 0]

maybe the president should just kill him with a drone strike instead.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So you're suggesting that to give Tsarnaev due process would result in him getting actual due process.

I think this is exactly what 'some' people hate. they are so outraged and addicted to their adrenaline and outrage that they want to take away his rights.

It's a little clue here - under due process and when found guilty....THAT'S the point where the rights can be removed. Not before.

It's a simple concept that: 1 - protects us all, and also; 2 - makes sure the guilty also get identified and dealt with

The misconception that due process is intended to protect the guilty is a false assumption.

...
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

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

[Reply]On the contrary, trying Jihadists in a civil court is just what islamic jihadists would like. There are billions of dollars in middle eastern banks on American soil available to "indefinitely" defend soldiers of allah. The muslim brotherhood or other "peaceful" muslims have their own lawyers. They would love to use our system against us in lawsuits and delays.

So you're suggesting that to give Tsarnaev due process would result in him getting actual due process. Jeez. Isn't that like objecting to having sex because it gives you run the risk of having sex with Kate Upton?

[Skyrad 0]

Quote

Quote

I am thankful every single day that the Democrats are perfect and selfless and never do anything just for PR effect and votes.

Quite a leap, Col. von Assumptions.

I was just pointing out that the it's the Republican that are, largely, on the wrong side of this one. The Democrats have their own hypocrisies. They're especially lax on unicorm regulation and rainbow registration.

Jaysus, Guys is there no subject in SC that is free of the pathetic Rep Vs Dem bickering,

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Jaysus, Guys is there no subject in SC that is free of the pathetic Rep Vs Dem bickering,

They even bicker about Jaysus.

[champu 1]

Quote

I find it refreshing to see so many of us, regardless of political affiliations, agreeing on this topic. Seems to me that the majority, here at least, believe in due process and are against the idea of an 'enemy combatant' or at least (better stated) against the idea of stripping away rights and due process for ANY reason

While I do agree with Andy regarding his statements about people being either a suspect of a crime or a POW if exclusively subject to US jurisdiction, he's not addressing the full scope of the "enemy combatant" designation in his statements. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps not.

His statement certainly addresses anyone in the custody of the United States or an entity thereof though, and that's where I agree with him. It's not without its problems, however, because the very nature of the conflict stands some of the provisions in the Third Geneva Convention on its head. For example the provision that prisoners of war be released at the end of hostilities.

[DanG 1]

Quote

Let's run off the jurisdictions involved in this:
(1) City of Boston - Mayor benino (D)
(2) County of Suffolk - Sheriff Andrea Cabral (D)
(3) State of Massachusetts - Governor Deval Patrick (D)
(4) Unites States: President Barack Obama (D)

Now - all it takes is ONE of those government agencies to ensure the protection of the suspect's rights. I cannot see how anyone can credibly argue right-wing involvement in the administration of law enforcement in this.

With regard to future policies - yep, the GOP is using this to attack immigration the same way the Dems use incidents to attack guns. Between the GOP and Dems, we have a full assault on everything.

Well, apparently those nasty Democrats you named are ensuring his rights. Does that make you mad? Do you want the Tea Party to somehow get credit?
I don't know why you had to bring up the Tea Party if you weren't trying to make it partisan.

All of the people calling for torture, redition, and loss of the suspect's rights that I've heard have been Republicans. Just saying.

- Dan G

[DanG 1]

Quote

McVeigh had no connection to any foreign movement we are at war with.

Do you know something the rest of us don't? Do you have evidence that the brothers were acting on behalf of a foreign government/entity? Do you realize that the brother in custody is a US citizen, just like McVeigh? Or do you think he should lose his rights because he's not a Christian?

- Dan G

[rickjump1 0]

It's a dead issue. I thought he should be tried with a military tribunal; like the German saboteus in 1942.

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

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

I find it refreshing to see so many of us, regardless of political affiliations, agreeing on this topic. Seems to me that the majority, here at least, believe in due process and are against the idea of an 'enemy combatant' or at least (better stated) against the idea of stripping away rights and due process for ANY reason

While I do agree with Andy regarding his statements about people being either a suspect of a crime or a POW if exclusively subject to US jurisdiction, he's not addressing the full scope of the "enemy combatant" designation in his statements. Perhaps intentionally, perhaps not.

His statement certainly addresses anyone in the custody of the United States or an entity thereof though, and that's where I agree with him. It's not without its problems, however, because the very nature of the conflict stands some of the provisions in the Third Geneva Convention on its head. For example the provision that prisoners of war be released at the end of hostilities.

Nothing cagey intended. I used the term to avoid cluttering the discussion with 3rd-country jurisdiction.

If the US has someone in custody and wants to keep them there, they're either criminal defendants or POWs. But if the US wants to relinquish physical custody, it can remand the detainee to the custody of a 3rd county whose laws the detainee is alleged to have violated. In fact, the US does this to allow the 3rd country to torture the detainee, nominally w/o violating US law - it's called "extraordinary rendition".

Under other circumstances, the US could turn the detainee over to the 3rd country for criminal prosecution if that country has an extradition treaty w/the US, and a US court orders such extradition. The practice of extraordinary rendition is yet another Bush-era end-around giving the detainee the benefit of a judicial extradition hearing with due process of law. Disgraceful, if you ask me, but nobody in govt generally asks me (unless I'm standing in front of a judge).

[champu 1]

When I said "full scope of the enemy combatant designation" I was alluding to situations where the person in question is never brought into the custody of the US in the first place.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

When I said "full scope of the enemy combatant designation" I was alluding to situations where the person in question is never brought into the custody of the US in the first place.

Oh, OK. I wasn't using "enemy combatant" in, say, the "target of a drone in Pakistan" sense; I was using it strictly in the sense of a detainee in US physical custody.

[lawrocket 3]

Right - they are actually making sure that he's being given civil court treatment. Meanwhile he's apparently quite cooperative. Which puts me on edge about whether he has requested counsel...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[ryoder 1,384]

Quote

Right - they are actually making sure that he's being given civil court treatment. Meanwhile he's apparently quite cooperative. Which puts me on edge about whether he has requested counsel...

I'm not surprised he is cooperative, now that older brother no longer has any influence. I'll bet he sings like a canary.

Now here is a crazy thought: Suppose running over his brother wasn't really an accident. What if he came to the realization that his brother had pulled him into something that had just ruined his life?

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