Posted on 04/22/2013 1:03:01 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Via the Examiner, they’ve hit him with just two counts thus far, one of which is conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction (i.e. an IED) against persons or property in the U.S., but that’s enough for a death sentence if the DOJ chooses to seek it. I sense some anger on the right that the feds aren’t treating him as an “enemy combatant,” but I think that has more to do with the condemnatory power of that term than the legal consequences flowing from it. Terrorism is qualitatively different from common crime in its political motivation and so people want Tsarnaev to be treated qualitatively differently by the justice system. That’s also what drives much of the objections to Mirandizing terrorists, I think: It’s not that Miranda will matter hugely in determining whether he talks, it’s that by Mirandizing him you’re treating him like a common criminal rather than a man who’s declared war on the United States. (Tsarnaev’s motive is still unknown but we all know which way the arrow’s pointing given his dead brother’s radicalism.) I’m more of a bottom-line guy on this sort of thing, though. Is there any chance that he’ll end up going free because the feds aren’t treating him as an EC? Nah. Given the video/photo evidence against him, at worst this guy’s going to prison forever. At best he’s getting the needle. Here’s a glimpse at the evidence against him from the complaint, which is posted at Legal Insurrection:
They’ve also got the carjacking victim set to testify him — and I recommend reading the full complaint for more on him, to see what he had to endure. The bombers did, allegedly, tell him right up front that they were the people who blew up the marathon, and according to the feds, the victim did indeed escape. He wasn’t “let go,” which, as noted this morning, would have been an insane gesture of magnanimity by the two most wanted men in America.
But as I was saying, I don’t think EC status matters (much). They can’t try him at a military tribunal regardless because he’s a U.S. citizen; even Lindsey Graham acknowledged that on Fox News this morning. They’re not sparing him their toughest interrogators just because he’s not an EC: The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team will be grilling him. Arguably, they shouldn’t even be allowed to consider designating him an EC unless/until they prove that he’s part of a group that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons” per the 2001 AUMF. Their best weapon in getting him to share intel is the death sentence hanging over his head, which doesn’t depend on EC status. If he wants to live — and it sure seemed like he did on Friday — then it’s time to talk.
Here’s Carney sounding very grand indeed about handling terrorists in federal court. Exit quotation:
Update: For what it’s worth:
Well, perhaps Obama’s corrupt Islamic sympathizing hands have reached further into the chain of command than is healthy. Obama corrupts everything he touches. The treasonous bastard should be impeached. Still praying for good results in the 2014 election so we can do just that. We may be done for as a free nation if not.
It shall be the duty of the United States attorneys for the respective districts, upon affidavit showing good cause therefor, to institute proceedings in any district court of the United States in the judicial district in which the naturalized citizen may reside at the time of bringing suit, for the purpose of revoking and setting aside the order admitting such person to citizenship and canceling the certificate of naturalization on the ground that such order and certificate of naturalization were illegally procured or were procured by concealment of a material fact or by willful misrepresentation
So, under U.S. law, the procedure for dealing with a fraudulent applicatoin for citizenship is a Federal court proceeding to revoke citizenship.
See my previous post - the point is, in order to “revoke his citizenship,” the govt needs to go to court and prove that he lied when he took the oath. Here, that would mean the govt would have to prove that he’s associated with some jihadi group (or, if he’s a “lone wolf” that he himself is an enemy of the U.S.). The evidence for that is basically the same as the evidence in this case, so the govt would basically need to try him twice - once in court to strip his citizenship, and then before a military tribunal.
Hell, deport any of us to Poland and we’d cheer, given what this country has become.
Oh yes. I feel the same way.
I agree completely with that. I’m sure he doesn’t give a rip about his fraudulently obtained citizenship.
It really makes me angry to think of all the people who don’t really appreciate being American. IMO, anyone who comes here seeking handouts and legal loopholes or refuses to assimilate is fraudulent.
I love being an American. I never want to leave this country, even just to visit somewhere.
I do fear the possible abuse of new precedents. I am not a concern troll, or anything like that.
I am just another person on the forum. My profile and posting history will bear that out.
Everyday, I see more and more government. More and more abuse of power. Everything is getting so damned upside down nowadays I wonder if they’ll just let everyone else in and throw out us good old fashioned Americans.
I love my country but have come to hate our government.
No matter what course of action they choose, we’ll get screwed somehow.
As a white male, I am so tired of being treated as an enemy of the state. I have been H1-b’ed, Affirmative Actioned, tax to death and punished every step of the way be FedGov™. You can HATE FedGov™ and still love your state city etc.
I’ll second that as well.
Sounds like you’re the lawyer, here.
Is this something that can be decided by a Judge BEFORE any trial begins, as it appears to have an impact on his status and maybe the venue/jurisdiction (not a lawyer, myself)?
Would it take more than 5 minutes?
I used to have one, but my rulebook was amended and the new rule that applies is Rule 308. I would invoke it.
Out in 10, release him to Russia. He’d rather get the needle.
**************************
Agreed.
I don't do this kind of law, but, based on my reading of the law, if the govt chooses to bring this kind of proceeding, it would be separate and apart from any criminal proceeding, so it could happen before the criminal proceeding. The removal of citizenship would be retroactive to the date of naturalization, as if the guy was never naturalized.
Note that this is an entirely hypothetical discussion - while the govt would be allowed to use military tribunals if it stripped this guy's citizenship, it would not be obligated to do so, and the 0bama admin has already decided not to.
I'm 100% certain they have NOT seen Breaker Morant. 
Thank you for the answer.
If I may ask, how was Obama and the Federal courts able to insert itself into this if it is not being considered a Terror Attack?
Why wouldn’t Massachusetts fight tooth-and-nail for jurisdiction over the murder of its citizens?
ping
There are federal statutes that deal with terrorist acts (including killing with bombs), even if not connected with any larger terrorist group. Obviously there are also a whole bunch of state laws at issue (murder, carjacking, many many others) - where both the state and the Feds have jurisdiction, you're right that they will often fight tooth-and-nail over who gets to try the guy. But, sometimes they won't - if it's an easier case to prove in one jurisdiction, for example, sometimes the other jurisdiction will defer. Or, if (as here) the state lacks a death penalty statute, the state may defer to the feds.
The Oklahoma City bombing is a good example. McVeigh was tried, convicted and executed in the Federal system, and Oklahoma never charged him (they didn't need to - the feds were going to execute him anyway). Terry Nichols, on the other hand, was tried both by the feds and then by Oklahoma, in part because Oklahoma wanted to make doubly sure he was never going to get out.
Since they read him his rights, they should take him out of the hospital and lock him in a cell with some of toughest skin heads they can find to guard him and protect his rights.
Except that the “brave” folks in Congress didn’t bother to declare war.
I’m glad they aren’t going to try him as an enemy combatant, whatever exactly that is, because it would give the government the ability to hide its errors.
It was the time of the Cold War which was undeclared and the end of the Korean War also undeclared.
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.