It should be noted that those who've been saying Tsarnaev should be treated as an enemy combatant were not saying that he should be given a military trial, since current statutory law doesn't permit that.
Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham... was suggesting that the administration label him an "enemy combatant" for purposes of intelligence gathering. Graham conceded it's not yet clear whether he could qualify as one -- to do so, the government would need to prove he was linked to Al Qaeda or an Al Qaeda-linked group.The real question is how to extract information, and I'm not seeing that Carney has addressed that. Talk of the "civilian system of justice" here is a distraction.
Posts
221 comments:
1 – 200 of 221 Newer› Newest»If he is linked to any terrorist group, foreign or domestic, then I'd say, yes he should become an enemy combatant. Otherwise, if he is an American citizen, which I believe he is, then he should be afforded those rights as repugnant as it is to say. Frankly, they should have just let him bleed out or finished him off completely. Filthy little sub-human.
Frankly, they should have just let him bleed out or finished him off completely. Filthy little sub-human.
Careful there, Methadras. You're going to elicit protective reflex from the womenfolk.
I read or heard somewhere that he was not Mirandized... but that he was cooperating?
Maybe my information about his "cooperation" with authorities is not good.
The Muslim loving Obamas are already using their protective reflex. They understand that two lovers of alah were just doing the righteous thing in self defense because of Islamaphobiacs everywhere.
We need to do an exploratory waterboarding to see if we are allowed to waterboard him.
Kinda like "we have to pass it to see what's in it", except waterboarding is relatively harmless, so it's actually not a good analogy at all. Sorry.
Even in the civilian system, you're still allowed to use a telephone book and a hammer on him.
Or maybe they struck a deal with him... we wont sent you to Gitmo and waterboard you if you cooperate... if you cooperate we will try you in civilian court like... I don't know... name a person who's gotten way with murder and became a celebrity in the process.
It sure would be nice to find out if there was anybody else involved in these bombings. It'd be a real bummer if over the next few months there were several more bombings that occurred on American soil, killing and maiming, and it turned out we could've stopped it. But nah, that won't happen, I'm sure the Obama administration knows best.
Is it too far fetch to believe this guy could walk?
Is it too far fetch to believe this guy could walk?
He was shot in the leg.
Not bad phx.
But I was serious, so you aren't scoring any points.
Boy I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, I think the Fed's Federalize too many crimes that ought to be handled as State offenses, e.g. murder. On the other hand, the State is the Commonwealth of Big Blue. In 2007, the State Dems rejected a Bill by Governor Romney to reinstate the Death Penalty...
Kinda like "we have to pass it to see what's in it", except waterboarding is relatively harmless, so it's actually not a good analogy at all. Sorry.
Waterboarding out of the question for the simple reason that he has a wound in his throat and none of his stories will hold water.
Sorry Lem. Carry on.
It'd be a disaster if he got off. He'd probably be murdered in the street by one of the family members of the victims.
WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder announced today that Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, a U.S. citizen and resident of Cambridge, Mass., has been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction against persons and property at the Boston Marathon on April 15, 2013, resulting in the death of three people and injuries to more than 200 people. In a criminal complaint unsealed today in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Tsarnaev is specifically charged with one count of using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (namely, an improvised explosive device or IED) against persons ...
But we never found any WMD's in Iraq?
Nonapod said...
It sure would be nice to find out if there was anybody else involved in these bombings. It'd be a real bummer if over the next few months there were several more bombings that occurred on American soil, killing and maiming, and it turned out we could've stopped it. But nah, that won't happen, I'm sure the Obama administration knows best.
My uninformed opinion is these guys worked alone. The older brother probably got some training while he was in Chechnya but i don't they were part of an active cell. They didn't seem to have much planning for after the bombing (robbing an VP, carjacking and leaving person alive).
Of course Ms. "Terrorista" is a concern but that level of stupidity argues against a professional.
Now having said all that. There will be future attcks. These guys were way to successful and there are many people watching and thinking "cool! I can do that".
Lem,
With the testimony of soo many witnesses, and videos, It's not as though they need a confession. Do you really think 12 citizens of Boston are going to let him walk?
phx said...
Is it too far fetch to believe this guy could walk?
He was shot in the leg.
4/22/13, 1:05 PM
hahahaha
Lem said...
Is it too far fetch to believe this guy could walk?"
No, I don't believe it is.
Although maybe he just strikes a deal where he serves a sentence for one crime instead of everything they could hang on him. You know, 15-25 to cover all counts kind of thing.
@Methadras: They probably should've let him die, however--from the news circulating and percolating (not what the Boston Globe is reporting, but actual news agencies!)...apparently there was a nest of 'em. And if he'll talk a little to root out the nest, that's probably better than letting him bleed out.
Maybe.
Waterboarding out of the question for the simple reason that he has a wound in his throat and none of his stories will hold water.
The crock pots are out of the bag.
I think "enemy combatant" needs to be defined, and this should be dependent on the individual's actions rather than his citizenship.
The Drill SGT said...
Lem,
With the testimony of soo many witnesses, and videos, It's not as though they need a confession. Do you really think 12 citizens of Boston are going to let him walk?"
You're talking about people that cast votes for John Kerry, Coupe Deval, Fork-Tongue Warren and Barry Obama. And anyone named Kennedy.
So yeah, I could see him walking or damn near it.
Lem said...
Not bad phx.
But I was serious, so you aren't scoring any points.
4/22/13, 1:08 PM
Serious answer. I would be shocked if he walked. They say they have video of him droppong the bag. He also told the carjack victim they were the marathon bombers. They also had a presure cooker bomb at the shoot out. And who knows what else they have found.
Water, meet board.
It is a serious national security issue to get information about who his accomplices are.
Trey
I'm trying to thin of any parallels with the Menendez brothers...
That was in California.
I don't think any extraordinary interrogation methods will be necessary. Selective pain management for his injuries probably already did the trick. Now he's lawyered up, we'll get no more valuable info from him unless he trades it for his life in a plea bargain.
Thank you, Madame.
I think this is Choom and holder digging in on the Demo idea that this is a law enforcement problem.
Methadras said...
If he is linked to any terrorist group, foreign or domestic, then I'd say, yes he should become an enemy combatant.
Didn't Tamer but Lame go overseas for training last year?
Weren't the Feds "watching" him?
That would seem to make Joker eligible for a stay at Gitmo.
PS From what I understand (and I could be wrong), he shot himself in the throat and may never be able to talk.
If the guy says "I want a lawyer & will not answer your questions" then who cares if he is mirandized -- his rights are Constitutional, not based on someone reading something off a card to him. All the authroities can do by not "Mirandizing" him is multiply the number of ways they could screw this up.
Hagar said...
I think "enemy combatant" needs to be defined, and this should be dependent on the individual's actions rather than his citizenship.
If they can prove he acted on behalf of an enemy of the US or was at war with the US, there's a clause in the Constitution that might apply.
Article 3 - The Judicial Branch
Section 3 - Treason
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.
Legal question for the crowd here:
Would not the actions of these two meet the legal definition of Treason?
Could it not be argued that by their actions, they have levied war against the Unites States and adhered to known enemies of the US - namely al Qaeda?
Thx
Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy pointed out that law enforcement officials only need to Mirandize a suspect if they plan on using his statements in court. If they don't plan to, e.g., they have enough evidence already, they don't need to read him his Miranda rights and they can continue to question him.
Also, any physical evidence garnered as a result of that non-Mirandized questioning can be used in court. And any evidence of criminal activity by others that they acquire can be used. They simply can't use his statements in court against HIM.
It's obvious that LE believes they have enough evidence against Dzhokhar Tsarnaev that they don't need to read him his Miranda rights.
Since he can't be waterboarded because the water will just run out of the hole in his throat. Why not pull his fingernails out?
"Would not the actions of these two meet the legal definition of Treason?"
I would think the "adherence" requirement, based on what we know right now, couldn't be met.
Is there actual evidence that they were working with/for/in support of a terrorist enemy?
Right now I think not.
There also has to be at least two witnesses who saw them commit treason. Do we have that?
And where Fearless Fosdick fails, Dudley Do-Right nails it - The Canucks get it right.
"Is it too far fetch to believe this guy could walk?"
Not walk, but get off lightly. As I said the day it happened, his brother was real nice to dive under that car. Dead men tell no tales, and this guy's lawyers are gonna claim he was practically brainwashed and forced into it by the dead brother. The family will back that up. Reasonable doubt.
The fact that he is going to be tried in a civilian court makes it extra double special good that he was not Mirandized. This way some scumbag lawyer can work to get him free. That is what they do. It is always good to give them something to work with when you don't have to do it.
You know that as a poor immigrant who suffered religious persecution he will be given every chance to walk. Undue influence by his brother. Mental illness. You know all the bullshit excuses that scumbag lawyers have come up with to let the guilty go free.
Trial for treason is still a criminal trial, I think.
The fuss about "enemy combatant" is whether the alleged offender is guilty of a crime or enemy action and so comes under such sections of the Geneva conventions to which the USA is a signatory state..
Lucien said...
If the guy says "I want a lawyer & will not answer your questions" then who cares if he is mirandized -- his rights are Constitutional, not based on someone reading something off a card to him. All the authroities can do by not "Mirandizing" him is multiply the number of ways they could screw this up.
Times 2.
An unforced error which is the symbol of this administration.
To me the problem with this story is that politicians and prosecutors are going to decide how he should be treated.
We have laws, and laws I think should determine how he should be treated.
I fear that once again we will see prosecutorial discretion rearing it's ugly head.
If the law demands death then so be it.
I think "enemy combatant" needs to be defined, and this should be dependent on the individual's actions rather than his citizenship.
Read the transcript from Meet the Press yesterday. Lindsay Graham spells this out. He talks about how a US Citizen or person in the United States can still be declared an enemy combatant for the purpose of intelligence gathering.
This better end with him getting the lethal injection in the chamber in Terre Haute.
Anything less is unacceptable.
As much as I loathe his actions, I don't want to succumb to throwing around over-the-top rhetoric just for the sake of demonstrating how abhorrent I find the act.
Others here are right: Enemy combatant status should be defined by action. And even if it's not applicable in his case, what does it matter? There are still very harsh penalties in existence for such an act.
"The real question is how to extract information, and I'm not seeing that Carney has addressed that."
That definitely is. On the one hand, I don't see someone who's as low level - indeed, entry level, if current descriptions are correct - in the radicalized world as his brother as having anything substantial to reveal. On the other hand, you won't know if you don't look, so by all means, extract it.
This was a terribly irresponsible and dangerous statement by Graham. He has no idea whether this bomber is a member of an enemy group or what the motivation was behind the bombings.
Even if - as it appears - radical Islamic teachings motivated their acts, that doesn't mean they were members of an enemy group. They could be, as I think they were, lone individuals motivated by their own thoughts and not directed by any outside enemy group.
With the testimony of soo many witnesses, and videos, It's not as though they need a confession. Do you really think 12 citizens of Boston are going to let him walk?
I've seen 'slammed dunks' get blocked.
Okay, let me backtrack my criticism of Graham.
He was suggesting that the bomber be treated as an enemy combatant if evidence connects him to an outside group. Not that he should be right now.
If they aren't going to try him for treason, they should rescind Dzhokar's citizenship.
From form N-400, application for naturalization as a US citizen:
9. Have you ever been a member of or in any way associated (either directly or indirectly) with:
a. The Communist Party? Yes No
b. Any other totalitarian party? Yes No
c. A terrorist organization? Yes No
10. Have you ever advocated (either directly or indirectly) the overthrow of any government
by force or violence? Yes No
11. Have you ever persecuted (either directly or indirectly) any person because of race,
religion, national origin,membership in a particular social group or political opinion?
Yank Dzhokhar's citizenship.
BTW, there are other questions on form N-400 that show why Tamarlan never got naturalized.
"Enemy combatant" is not a get out of jail free card.
A person may consider himself to be a soldier of some supra-national movement, etc.., blah, blah, blah, but if he is caught here conducting sabotage against the USA with no identifying uniform and whatever else the protocol calls for, he may still be as out of luck as the German soldiers caught in New Jersey(?) in WWII.
SMGalbraith said...
This was a terribly irresponsible and dangerous statement by Graham. He has no idea whether this bomber is a member of an enemy group or what the motivation was behind the bombings.
To be perfectly honest, I really don't care very much about his motivation. He killed 3 people at the Marathon and an MIT cop, plus injured over 150 others, many critically. What possible motivation could make his crimes less or more serious? I'm sure he didn't do those things out of love, so should we make a mockery of the case by adding hate crimes charges to the list of offenses?
The only thing that matters in regards to motivation is whether he had help for others.
Distractions will be coming fast and loose.
On the other hand, you won't know if you don't look, so by all means, extract it.
How is one going to do that once Younger Tsarnaev is mirandized? 'Public Safety Exception' lasts, what, 48 hours?
More wet towels please!
"To be perfectly honest, I really don't care very much about his motivation"
I agree that I don't care what is motivation was but I think it's important if the government is going to label him as an enemy combatant.
I'm just going to guess that his brother was a member of some terror group in Chechnya but the younger one was simply manipulated into taking his actions by the brother and isn't part of that group.
Some here still seem confused about what Miranda is all about. It is still possible to get a conviction without it, depending on what other evidence there is. If he never talks for the rest of his life, there is plenty of evidence avialiable to convict him.
The real question is how to extract information...
Deport him to Russia and let them do it. Putin is ex-KGB, and I'm sure he has some old buddies who remember how to "extract" information from people.
Are all American citizens who perform a act of terror (which is a broadly defined crime) and have some kind of affiliation with a group with a political agenda to be "enemy combatants?" Do you like this idea that the government can define such groups and then remove American citizens from the civil justice system? I do not.
"How is one going to do that once Younger Tsarnaev is mirandized? 'Public Safety Exception' lasts, what, 48 hours?"
But there's no need to Mirandize him. They have enough evidence to convict. Any statements made by him without being Mirandize can't be used against him but can be used for other purposes.
IOW, they don't need more info from him. So, they don't need to Mirandize him. But they're still allowed to question him.
Mirandizing a person means that his statements can be used in court. If they don't plan on using his statements there's no need to Mirandize.
Has Lindsey thought this through?
Enemy combatants aren't criminals, unless they have committed a war crime in the course of their combat. They can be held as prisoners indefinitely, but not punished unless a war crime can be proved.
The usual outcome for prisoners of war is for them to be exchanged or released at the end of hostilities.
Ok, I have a preliminary list of what the bomber is going to need to get off.
A change of venue... preferably California, but will take Connecticut.
A Gloria Allred type leading a dream team of lawyers... I think they want a woman defending him.
A PR firm to rehabilitate the "kid" in the media with stories about how "good" and "kind" he is.
A Lance Ito for a judge.
(The last one is long shot, and perhaps beyond the control of the defense, but maybe this kid is lucky... and... thus far... he is lucky he didn't get killed)
It'd be a real bummer if over the next few months there were several more bombings that occurred on American soil...
I'm not concerned. The last time something like this happened we acted upon internet chatter, requests for more security based on specific threats from our in-country staff and a warning from the host interim Libyan government to secure our Benghazi consul...
...oh, wait, never mind.
Here's one scenario: Holder won't ask for the death penalty (wouldn't want to upset all those Muslims that love Obama now) and once this punk claims he was influenced (forced, brainwashed, etc. - that's why he ran over him right? cause he hated him) by his older crazy brother there's a decent chance he will not even get life. Maybe 30 years instead.
And then a teaching gig at Columbia.
People should remember that jihadists (assuming, arguendo, that he is one rather than just farkin' crazy) do not particularly want to get out of jail, especially by repudiating their actions by claiming innocence.
It's been seen before many times - to deny "guilt" would be to deny the righteous action that was the entire point.
Normal criminals deny guilt because they don't think they were doing Good Deeds, and all they want is to avoid punishment.
An ideologically motivated terrorist (of any stripe) is proud of their actions and doesn't need to be coerced into admitting, nay, crowing about them.
Calling a pressure cooker bomb a WMD is just a way to avoid calling the act what it is, an act of war. WMD doesn't mean anything if it means everything north of a bullet.
I must admit I am confused about these Miranda rights so perhaps someone more well versed can explain it to me.
Isn't it a legal loophole that scumbag lawyers use to get guilty people to go free? Something they can point to so they can set ups some tasty jury nullification. I mean imagine if there are a few Muslims on the jury who decide that his rights were violated or something. You can be caught dead to rights with lots of evidence and they will still let you walk if you give them any sort of excuse. Wouldn't it have been better to mumble a couple of sentences to avoid this? Or is that just crazy? Something that could never happen?
Is there a Muslim Johnnie Cochran?
See ya, Jokar. There could be advantages to putting him in prison. No easy outs for our righteous truth warrior, no going out in a blaze of glory, just a pathetic circumscribed existence in a cell.
I hope it sinks in, somehow, and both lives lived merge in his memory.
If he never talks for the rest of his life, there is plenty of evidence avialiable to convict him.
and
If they don't plan on using his statements there's no need to Mirandize.
Understood (I think), but at some point doesn't defense counsel get to confer with his client and advise him he doesn't have to answer any more questions...regardless of whether the responses gathered are for evidence or intel?
I'm going with your "all the evidence they need for conviction' assumption and assuming questioning now is directed toward "how many more are there of you?".
"Isn't it a legal loophole that scumbag lawyers use to get guilty people to go free?"
Yes, if the statements that the suspect makes are used in court against him. If the police failed to Mirandize him, any statements he makes can't be used.
But if they're not going to be used, there's no need to Mirandize a suspect.
They have enough evidence against this person that they don't need to Mirandize him. Clearly, what they want is information about other bombs or accomplices.
"Understood (I think), but at some point doesn't defense counsel get to confer with his client and advise him he doesn't have to answer any more questions...regardless of whether the responses gathered are for evidence or intel?"
Yes, I believe if he asks for a lawyer he gets to see one. But they don't need to tell him he can have a lawyer or that he can be quiet since whatever he says will not be used against him.
Why do they need to tell him he can be quiet if whatever he says won't be used against him in court? Miranda is a protection both for the suspect and the police to ensure that whatever the suspect says was done with the full acknowledgement that he volunteered it.
But again, if they're not going to use his statements against him they don't need to tell him he doesn't have to talk.
Baron Zemo said...
I must admit I am confused about these Miranda rights so perhaps someone more well versed can explain it to me.
Isn't it a legal loophole that scumbag lawyers use to get guilty people to go free?
If you're as old as I am (and I think you are), you remember all kinds of cases getting thrown out because the officers didn't Mirandize or didn't Mirandize in the exact specific way the courts directed.
The angle Holder is trying to use is one put forth by John Ashcroft (O, the irony) in the wake of 9/11 (an even bigger irony is some phony folksy defending it over the weekend). This isn't something, as far as I know, which has been tested, so, yeah, the little weasel just might be able to walk because of it.
May not be that far off.
Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn walked because of FBI misconduct in their investigation.
Selective pain management for his injuries probably already did the trick.
"Selective" pain management is not only unethical on the part of medical professionals, it is also torture by another name.
It never ceases to amaze me, how many Althouse fans are also torture fans. Of course Althouse herself has refused to condemn torture and once again seems to be hinting that it is sometimes appropriate.
I think that it's appropriate to take this through the regular court systems. Should have mirandized and every thing else. Cross all t's and dot all i's.
I get they're worried about a larger conspiracy. So? If so they've got a foot soldier, not a mastermind. The whole point of a "cell" system is to keep information compartmentalized. The chances this kid knows anything that can't be figured out by figuring out who he's had contact with is close to nil.
and that was also complicity in murder by IED.
"And then a teaching gig at Columbia."
;-)
Why is he any different than Bill Ayers? I mean other than his father isn't rich and connected.
I think all of these TV crime shows have misled people. We see the suspect being handcuffed and read his Miranda rights and think that's how it's done.
But it's not. If they already have the evidence on a person they don't need to read him his Miranda rights. They can't use what he says in court but they can use his statements against others.
Miranda is designed to protect the suspect from engaging in self-incrimination. But if the police won't use his statements he obviously can't incriminate himself.
It's funny how the threat of a nuclear bomb (from NK) dropped off the news so completely because of a kitchen appliance bomb.
Yank Dzhokhar's citizenship.
Yanking his citizenship on the basis of those questions is only applicable if he lied about it at the time. There is zero evidence that he was a radical or advocated the overthrow of the government before he was naturalized. In fact there is abundant evidence of exactly the opposite.
Tsarnaev is specifically charged with one count of using and conspiring to use a weapon of mass destruction (namely, an improvised explosive device or IED) against persons ...
Nice catch, Hagar. I can't believe we've broadened the definition of WMD enough to include a couple pounds of black powder.
I'm just going to guess that his brother was a member of some terror group in Chechnya but the younger one was simply manipulated into taking his actions by the brother and isn't part of that group.
Come on. That's some pretty good manipulation by the older brother. It's not everyday that just anyone can be manipulated to: make bombs, plant them in public places, target women and children, then flee, then throw more bombings avoiding capture, discharge a weapon to buy time, and then run over your older brother.
That's some mighty fine manipulation right there. Or, little bro is a little more calculating then we give him credit.
Enemy combatants aren't criminals, unless they have committed a war crime in the course of their combat.
Deliberately targeting noncombatants is a war crime.
I notice an ugly trend here not to append "alleged" before the name of this fuck. Or, even "suspect".
They yanked Lucky Luciano's citizenship on the grounds that he had entered the country under false premises.
He was 2 years old at the time and was carried ashore at Ellis Island in his mother's arms. There is a photograph.
I think the "pro-pain" advocates are wrong here. But after seeing 8-year old kids blown apart and dozens of people with missing limbs, I can understand the sentiment.
And if it was MY 8-year old in harm's way I'd say, too bad, give them the pain.
That's the source of the sentiment Freder. It's out of a desire to stop eight-year olds from getting slaughtered. Understand?
I notice an ugly trend here not to append "alleged" before the name of this fuck. Or, even "suspect".
Freder Frederson wrote:
Yanking his citizenship on the basis of those questions is only applicable if he lied about it at the time. There is zero evidence that he was a radical or advocated the overthrow of the government before he was naturalized. In fact there is abundant evidence of exactly the opposite.
There are also questions about associations with undesirables and political extremists on the form. People like his brother Tamarlan, whose radicalization goes back several years.
Maybe some hard-working journalist could take time away from smearing the Tea Party and 2nd amendment activists to request a copy of Dzhokar's N-400?
Just a passing thought.
"that's some pretty good manipulation by the older brother. It's not everyday that just anyone can be manipulated to:"
Given what I've read about the younger one, it's plausible. He was called a "pothead" by his friends. Passive, laid back. It was his brother that was more of a determined ideological person.
By manipulation I mean manipulating into acting with his brother and not any larger group. I think his brother worked with or got some guidance from a radical group. But the younger one only got guidance from his brother.
That's the distinction.
It certainly doesn't exonerate the younger one by any means.
Deliberately targeting noncombatants is a war crime.
The 2004 Democrat presidential slate is notable because it was the only U.S. presidential race in which a party's candidate for both president and vice-president were self-confessed war criminals.
John Kerry later became Secretary of State.
Freder Frederson said...
Selective pain management for his injuries probably already did the trick.
"Selective" pain management is not only unethical on the part of medical professionals, it is also torture by another name.
That's also Obamacare.
"Mark Geragos Call your office"
Ivy league universities are always looking for minority professors. Surely this domestic terrorist could finish a doctorate in 20 or 30 years. All he needs to do is spout off a bunch of Marxist BS, the "Free Dzhokhar" movement will spring up post haste. He would have a bright future.
That's the source of the sentiment Freder. It's out of a desire to stop eight-year olds from getting slaughtered. Understand?
No, I don't. I thought believing in the Constitution is a cornerstone of being an American. If you believe that the Constitution does not apply to people who do something terrible, then what is the point?
Terry
The 2004 Democrat presidential...party's candidate for both president and vice-president were self-confessed war criminals.
What war crime did John Edwards confess to?
The 2004 Democrat presidential slate is notable because it was the only U.S. presidential race in which a party's candidate for both president and vice-president were self-confessed war criminals.
Huh? Kerry did not admit to being a war criminal, and what war crime did Edwards admit to?
Are all American citizens who perform a act of terror (which is a broadly defined crime) and have some kind of affiliation with a group with a political agenda to be "enemy combatants?" Do you like this idea that the government can define such groups and then remove American citizens from the civil justice system? I do not.
This. Playing fast and loose with the law to get the desired result...is still playing fast and loose with the law. I don't like it when Obama does it or when Sibelius does it or when the EPA does it. I also don't like it when done by a government official I like.
Rule of law. That should mean something. It isn't something we ignore when something happens to make us really really mad.
Edwards had sex with that crazy woman and knocked her up.
That was a whore crime of the first water right there.
Oh "war" crime.
Sorry. Nevermind.
So. Using a weapon of "mass destruction" is a civilian crime?
Does that sound as odd to you as it does to me?
"That's also Obamacare."
Brilliant!
"... the "Free Dzhokhar" movement will spring up post haste ..."
It's already sprung. On Twitter they are using the hashtag #freejahar or some such nonsense.
Frankly I think they should be convinced to gather together in a flash mob to protest Dzhokhar's indictment ... and that will give everyone -else- the opportunity to give those twits a sound thrashing.
"No, I don't. I thought believing in the Constitution is a cornerstone of being an American"
Being an American is more than thinking about the Constitution.
The Constitution is about the type of government we will have serving us. Self government and all that.
Being an American means being about something else, something that transcends the words in the Constitution. Not about the government but about "We the people".
The Constitution, as a Justice famously wrote, is not a suicide pact. Especially if the people commiting suicide want to take us with them.
Again, I'm against the use of pain. But I understand the sentiment behind it.
"On Twitter they are using the hashtag #freejahar or some such nonsense."
Useful idiots . . .
How about #hangjahar?
What about that bomb threat which cancelled the the first press conference.
Anybody heard who was behind that?
So what would be an appropriate sentence if found guilty?
I'd say forcing him to run the route of the Boston Marathon. All of Boston would be out there with baseball bats. Probably become a brand new sport.
Huh? Kerry did not admit to being a war criminal, and what war crime did Edwards admit to?
Sorry, typed too fast. I was talking about Clarke, was a top contender for the VP spot before Edwards go the nod.
As for Kerry, he commanded missions in 'freefire zones', where sailors were authorized to shoot any person who violated a curfew, a practice Kerry himself described as violating the Geneva conventions of warfare.
Methadras said...
If he is linked to any terrorist group, foreign or domestic, then I'd say, yes he should become an enemy combatant. Otherwise, if he is an American citizen, which I believe he is, then he should be afforded those rights as repugnant as it is to say
======================
The "citizen stamp" is not some magic amulet that assured US citizens will not be with the enemy and waging war against Americans and seeking to destroy us.
We had thousands of Jap-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans who returned to their "true motherland" during the Depression and waged war on us.
While many were shot out of hand by US troops that discovered them, in most cases, they were treated like other wartime enemy, including if captured. Some were investigated for treason charges..
The liberal and libertarian fetish about the extra rights any enemy with US citizenship should get as their due is soft-headed. If anything, they are just enemy plus traitors.
In the Gulf War, and I suspect in WWII, US soldiers would - if they had one bullet and saw two enemy soldiers and knew one was a US citizen the other just a foreign enemy - would want to use that one bullet on the US citizen bearing arms against us.
Baron Zemo said...
That was a 'whore crime'.
Okay, that was funny.
Unfortunately, it appears that Amanda Palmer has a role.
Left Bank of the Charles" said: "The usual outcome for prisoners of war is for them to be exchanged or released at the end of hostilities."
True. Of course, the Islamists have picked a war that will continue for generations. That was their call, and it was a poor one.
The Drill SGT said...
Boy I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, I think the Fed's Federalize too many crimes that ought to be handled as State offenses, e.g. murder.
========================
The Muslims generally make the call easier because we are talking about attacks against Federal targets, targets and criminal activities that span across state lines, conspiracy that crosses state and even national lines.
Yeah, Mass could decide they want to try him for cop-killing, but the Feds have evidence of the Muslim Bros in conspiracy to bomb in New York as well as Boston, plus likely terrorist indoctrination and training that happened well outside Massachusetts jurisdiction.
Plus, if you consider terrorists are enemy, not civilian criminals like an armed robber or wife beater, then relying only on cops and civilian criminal courts is dumb.
There is zero evidence that he was a radical or advocated the overthrow of the government before he was naturalized. In fact there is abundant evidence of exactly the opposite.
Could you cite some of that abundant evidence. I've seen nothing to support that statement.
Freder - "Deliberately targeting noncombatants is a war crime.
No it isn't. You can kill enemy non-combatants right and left and it not be a war crime, so long as the target has military value.
(In the Gulf War we targeted and killed hundreds of civilians in command and control facilities, mostly Baathists, and have always considered civilians can be killed at military targets like bomb factories, railroad centers, bridges, etc. )
More Freder dumbness - "Of course Althouse herself has refused to condemn torture and once again seems to be hinting that it is sometimes appropriate"
I think Althouse is smart enough to not buy into the bullshit the left was calling "tooorrrrrrrrtuuuure" back when Bush was in office. Or accept the premise that it would be better for tens of thousands of Americans to die rather than question an unlawful enemy combatant in anyway that made the asshole declare he was uncomfortable or "humiliated".
The Left in the Bush days, with help from asshole tools like McCain, also surrounded their Bush is a War Criminal because he toortuuures!" crap with an additional bodyguard of lies like:
1. A smart guy like McCain always fooled his interrogators.
2. A captured enemy never discloses information of value because dumb interrogators lack any ability to check info out.
3. In war, all our enemy get Constitutional rights, precious holy ones...like the right to remain silent.
4. The BS about how any enemy captured soon spills the beans once we "win their trust and befriend them". Which is complete nonsense because most hardcore fighters will not learn to love their enemy captors..think of how stupid it sounds "All our prisoners in WWII eventually became friends with the Nazis and Japs guarding and questioning them, at least the ones that treated Americans like friends. Then our troops readily gave up what was asked." Or that half-brain dead McCain....ask the fool if he would have readily talked if the NVA had tried to be pals with him..
The Drill SGT said...
Lem,
With the testimony of soo many witnesses, and videos, It's not as though they need a confession. Do you really think 12 citizens of Boston are going to let him walk?
They don't call Boston, much less Massachusetts, the San Fransisco, CA. of the east coast for nothing.
Baron Zemo said...
The fact that he is going to be tried in a civilian court makes it extra double special good that he was not Mirandized. This way some scumbag lawyer can work to get him free. That is what they do. It is always good to give them something to work with when you don't have to do it.
You know that as a poor immigrant who suffered religious persecution he will be given every chance to walk. Undue influence by his brother. Mental illness. You know all the bullshit excuses that scumbag lawyers have come up with to let the guilty go free.
Why this sounds almost like the John Mohammed/Lee Malvo case. The older influencing the younger. You can almost telegraph the scumbag leftard lawyers that are going to kill each other just to get to this kid of the publicity alone.
I hope he walks.
An individual on his own cannot commit an act of war and be a combatant. In order for the government to declare him a combatant, an unlawful combatant at that, they have to identify him as a member group that is at war with the U.S. He is a member of such a group. The war exists, and has a name- Islamic Jihad. The group he belongs to is the Religion of Islam.
Do you think anyone in government is actually going to stand up and say out loud the Truth? "We are at war with Islam, declared by Isamic imans, and carried out on their behalf and at their behest by individuals..." Not a chance, not until a few hundred more Americans are killed on U.S. soil by similar attacks. Or, if they attack a school like the Religion of Peace did in, oh, where was that again? Oh, yeah. That place in the Caucasus Mountains where the bombers came from.
I hope he is still cute and hot.
Could the hole in his neck make him unattractive?
I can't wait for his first appearance.
I will also be interested in what they do with his hair. My sense is that it will be a tight to the head cut with perhaps a little longer on top.
He is going to clean up good, not like those freaks in Colorado and Arizona.
I bet his clothes will be diva East Coast, kind of all downtown too at the trial. Very exciting.
Cedarford said...
Methadras said...
If he is linked to any terrorist group, foreign or domestic, then I'd say, yes he should become an enemy combatant. Otherwise, if he is an American citizen, which I believe he is, then he should be afforded those rights as repugnant as it is to say
======================
The "citizen stamp" is not some magic amulet that assured US citizens will not be with the enemy and waging war against Americans and seeking to destroy us.
We had thousands of Jap-Americans, German-Americans, and Italian-Americans who returned to their "true motherland" during the Depression and waged war on us.
While many were shot out of hand by US troops that discovered them, in most cases, they were treated like other wartime enemy, including if captured. Some were investigated for treason charges..
The liberal and libertarian fetish about the extra rights any enemy with US citizenship should get as their due is soft-headed. If anything, they are just enemy plus traitors.
In the Gulf War, and I suspect in WWII, US soldiers would - if they had one bullet and saw two enemy soldiers and knew one was a US citizen the other just a foreign enemy - would want to use that one bullet on the US citizen bearing arms against us.
Here, let me clarify it further for you since maybe you missed the point I was making. He is an American Citizen until he isn't or the government decides to pull his citizenship. Until then he can be called an enemy combatant, but he still retains his rights as a citizen. He doesn't have to be mirandized and that's fine, but he's still a citizen until further notice.
Also, your example of axis power ethnics that went back home to their motherland to fight against the US is a direct example of cessation of citizenship. It's very clear that if you are an American citizen and you fight against the country you are a citizen of on foreign territory, you automatically give up your citizenship rights. I think that is understood. However, because this happened on US soil and he did it as a citizen, it might muddy the waters a bit.
Cedarford said...
Freder - "Deliberately targeting noncombatants is a war crime.
No it isn't. You can kill enemy non-combatants right and left and it not be a war crime, so long as the target has military value.
(In the Gulf War we targeted and killed hundreds of civilians in command and control facilities, mostly Baathists, and have always considered civilians can be killed at military targets like bomb factories, railroad centers, bridges, etc. )
Freder was correct. And your quote proves he was correct. If the non-combarants are hanging around a military target, they get vaporized along with the target. You weren't targeting the non-combatants, you were targeting the target.
Remember- this is why Israel gets condemned so much by idiots. It's a war crime, a violation of the Geneva Convention, to locate military targets in 1. Hospitals and 2. Schools. So, where does the P.A. and Hamas place missile launchers? In schoolyards and on hospital roofs. It is a violation of the Geneva Convention to target schools and hospitals. Unless, of course, there's an unlawful rocket launcher there, or a rocket was just launched from there. Israel gets condemned for targeting a school or hospital, when they were targeting the launcher, and the world conveniently forgets that the real crime is placing a rocket launcher in a forbidden place, making that place a valid military target. Under the Geneva Convention.
The real question is how to extract information
The real question is whether this is a criminal act or an act of war. The real question is whether today is September 10 or post-September 11.
Why should it fall to everyday people to have to defend the country against the enemy? That's what we have a military for.
Stick him in a military detention facility as a unlawful combatent prisoner of war and leave him there until the conflict is over.
Dude. That's not the reason why Cedarford codemns Israel every day and in every way.
It is the JJJJUUUUUWWWWSSSS!!!!!!
Titus said...Could the hole in his neck make him unattractive?
Relax, Titus. Haven't you ever tried glottal?
If Djhokhar won't talk they could try putting a pair of women's panties over his head. If he protests, he's either a jihadist or he's gay and I think Titus wants to know which. If he's silent, the cat gets his tongue.
The fact that he is going to be tried in a civilian court makes it extra double special good that he was not Mirandized. This way some scumbag lawyer can work to get him free. That is what they do.
If they are going to (1) charge him criminally and (2) try him in a civilian court, then they have to play by the civilian criminal court rules. None of this hybrid-BS that Obama is pushing. And by civilian criminal court rules, then by all means, have the evidence suppressed and seek an acquital. It would serve Obama right.
But we don't have to go that route. There is ample precedent, both in national history and international law for simply placing him in military detention for the duration of hostilities. President Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands of American citizens - without criminal charge - for committing acts of war against the nation.
Yes, by all means, let's make a public spectacle of this by a civilian trial. Extensive discovery by the defense, never-ending accusations of statements obtained by torture, use of the courts as a soap-box. Fun for all.
And all the while the enemy is laughing at us and holding us in even greater contempt.
So what would be an appropriate sentence if found guilty?
What are the sentencing guidelines for murder, mayhem, and conspiracy?
Try this in the civilian courts, then you try it like any other criminal case.
What if it's determined that he IS working with an outside group and that there are other bombs planted throughout the city, and that his compadres are planning further attacks? And that these attacks are imminent
But he refuses to divulge any more info than that.
How much interrogation is allowed and how close do we have to adhere to the army field manual if lives are potentially at stake.
Not saying this is the case. I'm asking the hypothetical.
On "Fox News Sunday", Sen. Diane Feinstein seemed ignorant-willfully or otherwise-that the "enemy combatant" designation did not automatically warrant trial before a military commission. Whether conferring EC status on Tsarnaev would withstand judicial scrutiny is by no means certain though obviously if there is suspicion that he is allied with a larger terrorist network, then he should be declared an EC and let the legal chips fall where they may.
Cedarford wrote:
The liberal and libertarian fetish about the extra rights any enemy with US citizenship should get as their due is soft-headed. If anything, they are just enemy plus traitors.
In the Gulf War, and I suspect in WWII, US soldiers would - if they had one bullet and saw two enemy soldiers and knew one was a US citizen the other just a foreign enemy - would want to use that one bullet on the US citizen bearing arms against us.
Exactly. Suppose tomorrow Adam Gadhan resurfaced as the new head of Al Qaeda. Somehow we couldn't target him because he was an American at one point?
Bender wrote:
But we don't have to go that route. There is ample precedent, both in national history and international law for simply placing him in military detention for the duration of hostilities. President Lincoln imprisoned tens of thousands of American citizens - without criminal charge - for committing acts of war against the nation.
It's the difference of treating terrorism like an act of war versus a civil criminal act. There's still a discussion as to how such matters should be treated, hence the confusion as to what rules should be applied.
Freder Frederson said...
That's the source of the sentiment Freder. It's out of a desire to stop eight-year olds from getting slaughtered. Understand?
No, I don't. I thought believing in the Constitution is a cornerstone of being an American. If you believe that the Constitution does not apply to people who do something terrible, then what is the point?
I totally agree. now if you only held the rest of the first ten amendments with such high regard.
It never ceases to amaze me, how many Althouse fans are also torture fans. Of course Althouse herself has refused to condemn torture and once again seems to be hinting that it is sometimes appropriate.
There are rules to unconventional warfare? Or any warfare for that matter.
Who knew.
Or
If it saves just one life,Freder, it will be worth it.
I find it amusing that you think 1st century Americans are somehow more civilized, more evolved than the rest of the world.
No one is more brutal, more ruthless than an intellectual with the power of life and death over people.
Yes, by all means, let's make a public spectacle of this by a civilian trial. Extensive discovery by the defense, never-ending accusations of statements obtained by torture, use of the courts as a soap-box. Fun for all.
And all the while the enemy is laughing at us and holding us in even greater contempt.
Yes, by all means, let's flush our concept of the rule of law and Constitutionally-protected rights down the toilet, and hit it with the plunger a few times, just to make sure none of that stuff comes back up again. If we don't, those terrorists will laugh at us!
The terrorists have already won.
Well at least two Presidental elections. Just sayn'
Rusty wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me, how many Althouse fans are also torture fans. Of course Althouse herself has refused to condemn torture and once again seems to be hinting that it is sometimes appropriate.
Waterboarding isn't torture. We waterboard our troops. Are we torturing them? ANd it would only be authorized for use in very specific circumstances (like if there is a sleeper cell that has planted bombs in a city, or if you have the head planner of AL Qaeda in custody and are worried about future attacks that he would know about.)
Are you for locking down a city to look for a suspect? Well, in most cases most reasonable people would say no. But in this case, or in a case like this, it might be required.
Are you for depriving an American citizen of his Miranda warnings? Well in most cases, no, but in this particular case, maybe.
Are you for waterboarding in the context of SERE training? then you are ok with torture of AMericans in certain contexts.
And none of this "waterboarding in the army isn't really torture" bullshit. Because when the various journalists wanted to be waterboarded to see if they could call it torture they, for the most part said it was. Even though they knew going in it was a controlled environment and taht those waterboarding them weren't going to hurt them. If, in that context it's still torture, then how would it not be torture during SERE training?
And the White House has exactly what to do with the prosecution of this case?
Oh. I forgot. Obama pulled the trigger on Bin Laden too.
Well, it looks like the little sub-human homosexual poster boy has been mirandized. And before the althouse homosexuals get all butthurt about what I said, the posterboy comments came from three gay friends of mine who are all agog at this little twink and are seriously sad that he did this. I laughed at all of them and they to a guy said, "What a waste of potential."
The guy, regretably, is a citizen and should be treated as such. Hopefully we wont have to go through a dreadfully expensive trial to convict this "alleged" bomber, this "suspect."
If Joker did what he did because Tamer but Lame was working for Al Qaeda, that makes him an enemy combatant and a traitor.
The Demos don't want to deal with that stuff because it means they'd have to execute Hanoi Jane, as well as the Secretary of State and a former Serial Rapist In Chief.
Titus said...
I hope he is still cute and hot.
Gettin' old, dude.
Keep this up and you lose your fabuloussss card.
I see today that the dead brother has a suspicious relationship to a particularly gruesome triple murder back in 2011.
What if...
jr565
If some of our troops were kidnapped by terrorists and tied down and waterboarded would you then say they were not tortured? Or would you say the terrorists were just giving our troops a nice bath with the hope of maybe getting some information?
Palladian wrote:
Yes, by all means, let's flush our concept of the rule of law and Constitutionally-protected rights down the toilet, and hit it with the plunger a few times, just to make sure none of that stuff comes back up again. If we don't, those terrorists will laugh at us!
In civilian society, you're right. In a war environment different rules apply. During the Civil War Lincoln suspended habeus corpus,jailed newsmen, kept people in jail for extended periods of time without trial.
During WWII FDR caught German saboteurs and set up a kangaroo court trial so that he could execute them. He gave the German American saboteurs who were involved 30+ years in jail, as opposed to hanging them. But they didn't even actually yet commit an act of sabotage.
Matt wrote:
If some of our troops were kidnapped by terrorists and tied down and waterboarded would you then say they were not tortured? Or would you say the terrorists were just giving our troops a nice bath with the hope of maybe getting some information?
I expect that if we have our troops captured, especially by Al Qaeda, they wiill go through a lot worse than waterboarding. Just look at videos of Nick Berg to see what I'm talking about.
Enemy combatants who do not adhere to the laws of war are saboteurs. Saboteurs can be hung for their sabotage, and this is allowed under the Geneva Convention. Because they are not lawful combatants.
jr565
That's not answering the question. Just answer yes or no. If terrorists waterboarded our troops for information would you consider it torture?
In civilian society, you're right. In a war environment different rules apply. During the Civil War Lincoln suspended habeus corpus,jailed newsmen, kept people in jail for extended periods of time without trial.
During WWII FDR caught German saboteurs and set up a kangaroo court trial so that he could execute them. He gave the German American saboteurs who were involved 30+ years in jail, as opposed to hanging them. But they didn't even actually yet commit an act of sabotage."
And you think these examples were ALL good things?
Matt wrote:
That's not answering the question. Just answer yes or no. If terrorists waterboarded our troops for information would you consider it torture?
If we waterboarded our troops for SERE training purposes would you consider THAT torture?
In the case of whether terrorists waterboarding our troops would be torture, considering our troops wear a uniform, they are supposed to be treated a certain way that doesn't involve them being harshly interrogated. But I expect that our troops will be tortured.
"And you think these examples were ALL good things?"
They certainly weren't good things. But they may have been necessary things. War is a particularly horrible state to be in.
Would I say we should drop bombs on cities, if we werent in a war? Never. But in a war, that's one of the necessary evils that may be required to win a war.
Lem -- stop trying to make fetch happen.
jr565
Read this:
> [A] previously unreleased internal Department of Defense (DoD) memo, summarizing a review of the Navy SERE program in late February – early March 2007, reveals that there was fierce criticism within the DoD of the Navy SERE school in North Island, San Diego, for being the only SERE facility to still use waterboarding in its training program. The memo, obtained by Truthout, stated that the use of waterboarding left students "psychologically defeated" and impaired in the ability to develop "psychological hardiness."<
----
Yes, waterboarding IS torture. But the difference you speak of quite notable. If someone is waterboarded in training it is very different than if they are waterboarded while imprisoned.
Matt - if waterboarding is the worst our troops would go through then YES I'm ok with it.
Alex
An honest answer. One I don't agree with but appreciated.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
I'm down with that. Radical Muslims are at war with us:
The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies--civilians and military--is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it...
I'm not forgetting Bin Laden put a bullseye on me and everyone I care about. I'm not forgetting that in the 2000s about 1/3 of the Muslim world when polled expressed their "confidence in Bin Laden as a world leader."
In war things change. I know we won't get it from this feckless administration, but my vote is that every one of these Muslim terrorists goes straight to the interrogators and then a military tribunal.
"The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
Soooo predictable.
News Update: the terrorist suspect was just read his Miranda rights in the hospital.
Matt said...
News Update: the terrorist suspect was just read his Miranda rights in the hospital.
That also means it's time for his admirers to organize a defense fund.
How much will Titus kick in?
Matt said...
jr565
That's not answering the question. Just answer yes or no. If terrorists waterboarded our troops for information would you consider it torture?
===================
It is hard to frame a logical answer to your question because it falsely conflates lawful combatants with unlawful enemy combatants, or just pure civilian terrorists or
"Freedom Fighters".
Put it a different way. Suppose 4 hardcore Cuban exiles with US citizenship snuck into Cuba and downed 4 passenger jet airliners with MANPADs, killing 600 people. (and yes, an Exile did blow up a plane with a bomb and was working with others to get more of "Fidel's planes" bombed mid-air back in the 70s)
Let's say the Cubans caught the 3 US citizens and wanted to learn if there were other MANPADs, other actions coming, and wanted to know who gave the Exiles the money and equipment.
And the 4 US terrorists wouldn't talk.
Given the bloodshed, the threat to Cuba of more deaths, need to learn who was targeting them....I would consider waterboarding the 4 US citizens quite acceptable and the "torture" a fair tradeoff if it saved 600 from gruesome, perhaps painful and prolonged death.
Are Chechyan Muzzies cut or uncut?
Soooo predictable.
And you're not?
Would you care to actually make an argument and support it in rebuttal? You are one of the laziest and most reactionary commenters here.
Matt wrote:
Yes, waterboarding IS torture. But the difference you speak of quite notable. If someone is waterboarded in training it is very different than if they are waterboarded while imprisoned.
So SEREtraining in the context of training is or is t torture?
If not, how could a journalist say that it is, since the context of that waterboarding is very different than if they are water boarded while imprisoned.
@Titus: The hardcore ones practice cervical circumcision.
Nice catch, Hagar. I can't believe we've broadened the definition of WMD enough to include a couple pounds of black powder.
Wow. Bush is completely vindicated on Iraq, then!
Alex wrote:
Matt - if waterboarding is the worst our troops would go through then YES I'm ok with it.
I would have a problem with it if it were done to our everday troops by AL Qaeda. For one, because we are adhering to the rules of law, and they are not. And two, because even when we used waterboarding it was in extremely limited circumstances with very specific targets.
And in certain circumstances it would be justified, from their perspective.
Waterboarding is better then having your head sawed off.
jr565
Waterboarding is torture even in training. The difference however between being waterboarded in training vs while imprisoned / in custody or in enemy hands should be obvious. In the former the victim can get up, walk away and go home. It is also presumed the trainers carrying out the waterboarding will take a bit of precaution. While in the later, the one being tortured cannot be sure they won't drown and be left for dead in a pile of water and spit.
Here's an article by someone who did waterboarding training. He says it is torture.
And here's torture al-Qaeda style. See very graphic link.
Drills, blowtorches, electrocution, severed limbs, broken limbs, ice pick to the eyeballs, hot clothes iron to the skin etc. Good times.
I have some tiny ambivalence about waterboarding, but if it's good enough for our boys in training, it's fair enough for when we catch the drill and blowtorch thugs.
Matt wrote:
If terrorists waterboarded our troops for information would you consider it torture?
If a saboteur with no military insignia and uniform who was acting as a saboteur and killing troops or civilians were executed as per the rules of Geneva, would it be the same as if that same saboteur or his group captured and executed our troops.
Same action in both cases. Yet, one is different than the other.
It is alarming that there are people who would toss away Constitutional Rights for citizens for expediency.
Benjamin Franklin said it best about security and freedom.
Just spit-ballin'
1. MadMan that sure looks to me like a “show me...” Mob-type murder. “Do what we tell you or somebody you REALLY love gets it...” Maybe that's what Crazy Mom meant by "framed"?
2. I hope you Legalistics can define Double Jeopardy in terms of State vs. Federal Prosecution.
3. I have not heard that each bomb killed at least one person. I am setting aside the MIT Policeman's murder. Did #2 actually place a bomb that killed?
4. I'd like to know the circumstances surrounding the initial shoot-out. Where was #2 and was he seen with a gun? Remember the idiot/criminal Columbia Professor "just" drove the get away car...
Just spit-ballin'
Muzzies are cut but not at birth...interesting.
I was cut at birth.
tits.
I would like to see a treason conviction. It has not been done in a long time. Just like we need to to go through contested international waters to prove we have the right to do so, we need to convict someone of treason every once in awhile, to discourage the others.
It is alarming that there are people who would toss away Constitutional Rights for citizens for expediency.
To be honest, I'm more concerned about the decency that certain people toss away based on sexual attraction. This deserves only mockery.
As for this emerging hero, let's wait until a more thorough investigation reveals whether the little shit head lied on his application for citizenship.
ken in sc said...
I would like to see a treason conviction.
If he's eligible, and charges warrant it, I agree. It would be interesting to hear whether his emerging supporters believe treason is a meaningful charge in this day and age.
I find it amazing that liberals prefer to keep arguing about fantasy terrorists who don't torture then about the real ones who saw off limbs and gouge eyes out.
@Alex - Richard Pearl was unavailable for comment.
MadisonMan said...
It is alarming that there are people who would toss away Constitutional Rights for citizens for expediency.
Benjamin Franklin said it best about security and freedom.
================
Are you referring to his famous peacetime platitude written in 1959, or his letters during the Revolutionary War urging officials to keep his traitor Loyalist son locked up without trial in a stone dungeon with a 30% death rate? Or his letters on the need to intercept and open mail between Canada and the US to finger hidden Loyalists?
Perhaps his instructions while on the Committee of Secret Correspondence that Loyalist printing pressed be attacked, broken and burned?
Because there are two Franklins. The peacetime one blathering about how no threat to someone elses life warrants even a temprorary loss of liberty. And the serious one of the Revolutionary War who did what it took to prevail and accept with lives on the line, security did matter more than "Freedom!!".
Frankly I don't get all this "eek! waterboarding" prissiness.
War is a serious, horrible business. In addition to the death and devastation we try to inflict upon our enemies and they upon us, we take our soldiers away from their families and livelihoods often without choice, pay them a pittance, take away most of their freedoms, train them to kill or be killed, and accept the risk that they come back maimed or not at all.
But waterboarding? The horror, the complete abject horror, the betrayal of all our principles.
And how many innocent or guilty victims of our drone program would overwhelmingly prefer 30 minutes of waterboarding compared to maiming or death
They lived 10 blocks from me and I am fantasizing about all the options that we could have had, but now alas, those options have died.
Sad.
tits.
The decision to seek or not seek the death penalty will be based on what is best for Obama politically.
Frankly I don't get all this "eek! waterboarding" prissiness.
It's tenet of American Sullivanism based on morals and also because it gets to Bush and Cheney. It's also opposed by John McCain, for obvious reasons. I suspect this frisson excites certain people to no end.
They lived 10 blocks from me and I am fantasizing about all the options that we could have had, but now alas, those options have died.
Jailhouse visits? Skyped jerky-jerky sessions?
Rabel said...
The decision to seek or not seek the death penalty will be based on what is best for Obama politically.
I suspect we'll have that discussion over Gosnell (if convicted) well before we do for #2. Of course Obama would sooner pardon Gosnell than let that happen.
Notice how that story and those murders went away.
Of course they will extract information from him as they do with any other killer, and as the rational SM pointed out by citing one of the better blogs written by lawyers: "Orin Kerr over at the Volokh Conspiracy pointed out that law enforcement officials only need to Mirandize a suspect if they plan on using his statements in court. If they don't plan to, e.g., they have enough evidence already, they don't need to read him his Miranda rights and they can continue to question him."
It is alarming that there are people who would toss away Constitutional Rights for citizens for expediency.
You wonder sort of government these people would form if it were left up to them. Probably not unlike the shithole countries they claim to abhor.
The real question is how to extract information...
Which torture has been proven to be really horrible at. Assuming you want accurate information.
But then, oh yeah! This is a blog that disregards accuracy as blithely as FOX News does! Haha! Carry on.
Chicken-Man:
This isn't about Gosnell.
It's also not about Sarah Palin.
Nor is it about uteruses. Nor abortion. Nor childbirth. Nor about determining the validity of interesting maternity stories. Nor Andrew Sullivan.
Your fixations are showing.
Big lulz.
Matt thinks Alex is capable of an honest answer.
;-)
If these two bombers were really hot women with hot bodies in pics you straighties would be commenting abou their looks.
It doesn't mean we can't be disgusted by what they did.
I mean, hello...hot is hot. and....Are We Not Men?
Jesus.
tits.
O Ritmo wrote:
Which torture has been proven to be really horrible at. Assuming you want accurate information.
one of the dumber statements you made.
Because whatever intereogation method you used, you would then verify the information.
So if your purpose was to get someone to admit to anything torture is quite effective.
But that isn't what we interrogate people for. If its to find out details then, whether thy told us what we considered a truth or a lie we'd look into what was affirmed to see I t was truthful. And it it was deemed untruthful you could go back to interrogation.
Why do all the people who say enhanced interrogation doesn't work assume that the interrogators would somehow forget the ability to verify accuracy, which they would do with all other interrogation methods?
Sorun: It's funny how the threat of a nuclear bomb (from NK) dropped off the news so completely because of a kitchen appliance bomb.
I was thinking the same thing. A week ago we were talking about the supreme leader of North Korea starting a nuclear war. Today that fat kid in the bad haircut doesn't even rate ten words in the late edition.
I see the treason charge has been raised. Not gonna happen.
First, his terrorist act would have to be declared an act of warfare. But, an individual, or even 2, acting entirely on their own, can't be at war. So, the government would have to find them to be a member of a group. There is only one group that they can be attached to in any meaningful way- Islam itself. And there are multiple imams throughout the world who have encouraged in their writing and sermons just this type of lone wolf action, and urged it against the United States. We all know the bombing was Islamic Jihad, including the government and its' prosecutors. Even Andrew Sullivan.
But the official stance of the government is- "We are not at war with Islam." If the government admits the bombing was Jihad, holy war against the U.S., then it has to admit the U.S. is at war with Islam.
That is not going to happen. Not yet. Two, three years from now, or ten, that could change. Depends on just how much jihad occurs here.
The requisite two witnesses exist. The bomber will probably even admit in open court he was engaging in jihad. But the government will not and cannot accept that his actions were an act of war, rather then just a lone wolf terrorist without admitting that jihad against the U.S. is real and sponsored by Islam. And again, that just ain't gonna happen.
If jr wrote coherent sentences.
Then they would connect ideas together in a grammatically sensible way.
But,
he seems to know not how to do
this.
I wonder, perhaps
he types his ideas from
a
cell phone,
and then
presses a button that says,
"upload".
I guess that
would
account for
the extremely disjointed
nature
of
his
thoughts
and words.
R
I
T
MO,
L
M
A
O
Post a Comment