Posted on 04/20/2013 12:55:08 PM PDT by yoe
Several Republican lawmakers are calling for the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings to be tried as an enemy combatant, rather than as an ordinary criminal.
“It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city,” read a Saturday statement from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). “The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans. The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent.”
Their statement came after Dzhokar Tsarnaev was taken into custody and sent to the hospital Friday night.
[snip] “America is part of the battleground,” he said. “If you capture someone on the battleground, they should not be given the privilege of a civilian trial where they are given different rights...
[snip] “We continue to face threats from radical Islamists in small cells and large groups throughout the world,” they said. “They have, as their primary focus, killing as many Americans as possible, preferably within the United States. We must never lose sight of this fact and act appropriately within our laws and values.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Enumerated powers only. They dont have unlimited powers to pass whatever they want. Although they do pass whatever they want and that has to stop.
Not true.
Dzhokhar Tsarnaev committed a traitorous act of terror in support of a foreign power with whom we are currently at war (Islamic terrorism).
As such, he sacrificed his American citizenship, ipso facto and is without its protective cloak -- as of the moment those bombs were triggered.
Sen. Graham, the little pipsqueak, is 100% correct in his assertion that Tsarnaev can (should) be tried by a military tribunal as an "illegal combatant".
It's not a question of whether we like the opinion or not. Or that we trust Obama or Holder to make that judgment. It's a matter of settled law.
The situation does serve to emphasize the point that we should always elect trustworthy people to hiigh office, however.
I think we strip them of their citizensip and then have a military trbunal.
Argument fails because there is no War.
Congress has not declared War for 60 years.
Authorization to use military force does not constitute a declaration of war as per the US constitution.
Me too. The sickest I've felt since the first week of November and I realized we had just passed the tipping point when the takers outnumber and outvote the makers. We are about to get a severe f***ing the rights department.
“Only if you believe the Feds should be able to do that to you GG”
Look up the phrase “tongue in cheek”
I think I as a US citizen I’m entitled to a fair trial not a military tribunal. Get it?
LOL. Agreed. A speedy ride all the way to the end of the slack.
I oppose it all.
great thats your opinion the fact is that acting and enforced law of the land is the ATF has the power on this one and the fed can and most likely will deem this guy an enemy combatant which he is. Giving full constitutional protection to a johnny come lately "citizen" is a crime in and of itself this guy should be shot by military firing squad after a good torture session or 50. Dont like the ATF think it shouldn't exist well thats great do something about it raise arms even, but until that day the federal law is the supreme law of the land regardless what people think should be legal or not. opinions vs laws and statutes backed by armored vehicles and real assault weapons opinions matter not. The fact is this kid is a damn traitor and should be executed as such by the military he is a enemy on our own home tuff fighting in a war that we must win.
He’s a naturalized US citizen so if he’s accused of something by King Obama he gets his day in court just like you.
I would argue it applies to anyone Obama accuses of a crime not just citizens (4th amendment says ‘Any person’)
Sure there are. We are at war with Al Qaeda. If he can be linked to AQ, even through his brother, then he is a non-uniformed military combatant. He would have been waging war on US soil. Neither the Geneva Convention, nor due process would apply. He would be subject to the same rules as a Confederate sabotuer captured during the Civil War.
I do not support the ATF and believe whatever power they think they have is illegal under the US constitution
it should be disbanded and defunded.
There is such a thing as watching too much “Law and Order”.
The question is, what do you want to happen? Do you want a show-trial where the dangers to the US are swept under the rug? Then sure, pretend he has a magical cloak of protection provided by the US Constitution, from the swearing of an obviously false oath to it.
If you want to acknowledge his role in Islam’s war against the US and gain greater security, then send him to Gitmo and get everything out of him. His citizenship history and actions make this seem reasonable, to me. I don’t care about a tribunal.
I don’t get the stuff about “he meant it at the time” as far as the oath. Again, that sounds like too much “Law and Order”. What the heck does that mean. He didn’t keep his oath, or didn’t mean it at the time. There is no difference. Why invent some silly legalistic state of imaculate citizenship that you could pretend he was in for a while? He didn’t mean it, and he attacked US citizens in the name of Islam to prove that.
In my mind, the only thing that should prevent a one-way ticket to Gitmo for him, would be some judge deciding (before any kind of a trial) that there is even a shred of doubt that he planted at least one of the bombs.
All true, but that ride to Gitmo (I prefer Colorado Maxi, it’s miserable there) can’t happen without due process (Fifth Amendment). What that is going to be is at issue here.
I agree!
John, I've only seen hearty conversation here on this thread. Different angles, points of view and some interesting things to consider. It's what FR is all about. No. one thing is, don't take it personal.
Getting back to the original premise of our engagement, vis a vie Federal vs State charges, recall the US Navy was created under Thomas Jefferson to fight the Barbary Pirates.
What if, one of those pirates had crept onto our shores and inflicted damage to the citizens of this Country in a barbaric way, how do you think he would have responded in todays climate?
There is no war against AQ.
Just because you assert there is one doesn’t mean there is.
Congress hasn’t declare a war for 60 years...
They passed an authorization for use of force against Terrorists responsible for 9/11 in 2001 and another one for the Iraq invasion.
That’s it.
AQ isn’t mentioned anywhere... There is no war against them.
And I believe the AUMF is a usurpation of power and is being used illegally by the Obama administration to go into countries like Yemen and drone strike villages. There are children being killed with drone strikes who weren’t even born on 9/11
“I agree. He is not technically a citizen. He is a citizen. Unless the govt can offer proof that he was serving the interests of specific enemies at their order or request this is a crime against the people of the Commonwealth of Mass. and he should be tried under the Commonwealth’s statutes.”
I tend to agree, if they can prove he was serving the interest of specific enemies at their order or request then Washington should call it treason. But event that is no reason not to let Massachusetts compete its trial. Treason should simply be added to the list of charges against him(as a separate crime).
Frankly its a bit up in the air but Washington would be well advised to go forwards on such charges after Massachusetts is done with him. If hypothetically Massachusetts killed him for his domestic crimes that should be more than punishment enough for treason. If on the other hand Massachusetts simply gives him 20 years to life, then going forward with the charge of treason would be meaningful.
In the mean time Washington should be investigating to find all of his overseas and out of state contacts in preparation for both the charge of treason and more relevantly to find out where his co-conspirator are overseas so we can go after them.
So in reality the State and Washington both have separate jobs the only overlap is in that some of the information discovered by the State may be useful to Washington and vice versa. I see no reason why they shouldn’t share.
I don't believe anybody still thinks you're a troll. But remember, everybody was a nOOb once upon a time. Except for me. I am so old I was never a nOOb. LOL.
I would argue that you can’t read. I have said this kid as far as I know is a US citizen and is entitled to a fair trial. The speedy hangin was a joke. Although thats likely what he’ll get.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.