Boston bomber, citizen or enemy combatant?

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

The only way America can prove it's not as villainous as it's enemies paint it is by sticking four-score and true behind it's core beliefs and law, justice and the Constitution/Bill of rights.

The man was an American citizien for good or ill. You don't strip the rights off of serial killers do you? He killed three. He wanted to kill more. Is the Aurora Shooter getting his rights stripped off of him? Nope. What about the Columbine shooters? Or Charlie Manson. Nope. Why? Because they had rights as American citizens. This guy may have abused the system, he may have those rights only to use them against America but.... those rights are what makes you you. The fact those rights are there to be abused means something and it's something good, it means those rights are something eternal, something worth defending if they're worth abusing. You're not judged by what you do to people who uphold those rights, but by what's done to those who tread on them. Do you say "no, you've done something that hundreds of others have done, but because we don't like your beliefs, we're going to do something to you we didn't do to those others"? That doesn't make you American, that makes you a mob of bloody thirsty savages, willing to throw away what you believe in in a moments notice.

Three people are dead. Hundreds injured. Thousands emotionally scarred.

that's the numbers. Millions believe in something you're about to throw away because of an offence that is nothing compared to what you've suffered in the past.

[Ryinrea]

He deserves death by crude explosive but yes I guess he's entitled to Miranda rights.

I'm more than ready to throw up upon hearing what his defense attorney and the media says to portray him as a victim. There's already a freejahar twitter feed being supported by people I feel are worthy of some inquisition by authorities.

He is a citizen of the US, and deserves the same rights as others have, since if we do not allow him the same rights then these men have succeed in doing what AQ did not, which is destroy our way of life.. *sneezes * damn allergies

Edited April 21, 2013 by Ryinrea

[Jeremiah65]

If we do not afford him the Constitutional rights of a citizen then the enemy has won. We must not betray ourselves or the fundamental principles this country was founded on...even when it makes us angry. There are certain things that we have stood up for in the past and told the world "this is who we are'...we "used" to not give in to the desire to torture our enemies (this sits precariously on the edge of a razor these days)...we have wholeheartedly supported the Geneva Convention...we have tried to correct a fault within ourselves wherein we had different "classes" of citizens...and we have never revoked the citizenship of a criminal so as to circumvent his constitutional rights...we must bear the burden of doing the right thing..

We have to be the adults here...we have to be "the good guys"...if we don't...then the Terrorists have succeeded in destroying the USA" that we all grew up to love and call home...they will have extinguished "the light on the hill". We cannot let this happen. They have already forced us to change how we live and filled many with fear and terror...we are bigger and better than this IF WE CHOOSE TO BE....

Furthermore...we must stop cowering like babes in the shadows...that is not who we are....we are the free and the brave...WE MUST STOP THIS WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE LIBERTY FOR SECURITY...if we do not stop this...then we deserve neither...

Edited April 21, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[+Paranoid Android]

Can't we just make it easy and try him as a traitor, since he was a legal citizen, and put him to death?

You're not the first in this thread to mention this, so anyone else who made similar statements this also applies to them. I'm just curious a to how he is a traitor? The United States is a governmental entity and the only way he can be a traitor is to betray the United States to a foreign governmental entity. Islam is not a governmental entity. It is a religious identity. Setting off a bomb because of religious extremism is not treason. It's terrorism. Even if he was working with a terrorist organisation, that is still not a governmental entity.

Of course, if we can link this guy to the Russian government, and the Russian military leaders ordered the Tsarnaev brothers to bomb the Boston Marathon, then he can be tried as a traitor. Not to mention a declaration of war between America and Russia.

[Tiggs]

IMO, he should be tried in an American court - as should any other non-uniformed enemy combatants, regardless of whether they're American citizens, or otherwise.

It needs to be proven that they actually are non-uniformed enemy combatants in the first place - because people should be considered innocent until proven guilty.

[Raptor Witness]

I hope I'm not duplicating information, but the latest news today, was that this handful of conservative republicans only want the bomber detained and interrogated as an enemy combatant, before releasing him to the Justice Department. The Justice Department has apparently already turned the idea down.

Edited April 22, 2013 by Raptor Witness

[docyabut2]

Don't you need an actual state of war for traitors and enemy combatants to exist?

Has there been an actual declaration of war?

Or is this just presidents sending troops out on their own personal perogative?

If the latter then whatever term is used is also presidential personal perogative and an ignoring of our Constitution.

Funny how the party who screams the most that they will defend our Constitution are the first to want to trash it.

There is a declaration of War on Terror, that is not over.

107th CONGRESS 1st Session S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

( War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5( of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

Attest:

Secretary.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

[Setton]

There is a declaration of War on Terror, that is not over.

107th CONGRESS 1st Session S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This joint resolution may be cited as the `Authorization for Use of Military Force'.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL- That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

( War Powers Resolution Requirements-

(1) SPECIFIC STATUTORY AUTHORIZATION- Consistent with section 8(a)(1) of the War Powers Resolution, the Congress declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization within the meaning of section 5( of the War Powers Resolution.

(2) APPLICABILITY OF OTHER REQUIREMENTS- Nothing in this resolution supercedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution.

Passed the Senate September 14, 2001.

Attest:

Secretary.

107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. J. RES. 23

JOINT RESOLUTION

To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States.

That's not a declaration of war. It's authorization to use Armed Forces. As far as I can tell, that's all it applies to, not changes to how justice operates. Although I do love that UM insists on putting a face with sunglasses every time you type b then )

[Babe Ruth]

The AUMF is pure sophistry, meant to deceive an ignorant populace and compliant media.

[Babe Ruth]

What I find worrisome is that the propaganda effort by the media is preparing the masses (and they've responded predictably) to accept the fact that if the government says so, the Miranda practice is optional.

The Fourth Amendment was nullified by the Patriot Act 10 years ago, Habeas just last year, and now the Fifth Amendment will be nullified formally by way of this event.

[docyabut2]

That's not a declaration of war. It's authorization to use Armed Forces. As far as I can tell, that's all it applies to, not changes to how justice operates. Although I do love that UM insists on putting a face with sunglasses every time you type b then )

A declaration of war on terrorism to use those forces.

in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

[Setton]

A declaration of war on terrorism to use those forces.

in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

It's not a war. A war and an armed operation are two different things. One of the key differences being how justice operates.

[regeneratia]

It is really hard to assess whether these guys did it or not. I cannot make judgement on the media reports alone. There is a huge number of unanswered questions about the Boston Bombing, ones that leave me seriously questioning the FBI and mainstream media.

IOWs, there is not enough info out there to make a judgement like that, there is not enough truth issued from the FBI to make that kind of judgement.

[Bama13]

Funny how the party who screams the most that they will defend our Constitution are the first to want to trash it.

How are the Libertarians trashing the Constitution?

[Mr.United_Nations]

It is really hard to assess whether these guys did it or not. I cannot make judgement on the media reports alone. There is a huge number of unanswered questions about the Boston Bombing, ones that leave me seriously questioning the FBI and mainstream media.

IOWs, there is not enough info out there to make a judgement like that, there is not enough truth issued from the FBI to make that kind of judgement.

Isn't the internet a form of media?

[F3SS]

You're not the first in this thread to mention this, so anyone else who made similar statements this also applies to them. I'm just curious a to how he is a traitor? The United States is a governmental entity and the only way he can be a traitor is to betray the United States to a foreign governmental entity. Islam is not a governmental entity. It is a religious identity. Setting off a bomb because of religious extremism is not treason. It's terrorism. Even if he was working with a terrorist organisation, that is still not a governmental entity.

Of course, if we can link this guy to the Russian government, and the Russian military leaders ordered the Tsarnaev brothers to bomb the Boston Marathon, then he can be tried as a traitor. Not to mention a declaration of war between America and Russia.

I just figured that if a civilian conspires with a foreign entity to betray and kill his own countrymen then that would be a traitor.

I'm not arguing what you say but I will note that [radical] Islam is every bit political as it is religious. Although...

I hope I'm not duplicating information, but the latest news today, was that this handful of conservative republicans only want the bomber detained and interrogated as an enemy combatant, before releasing him to the Justice Department. The Justice Department has apparently already turned the idea down.

...I can't deny how frustrating it is to give this guy the right to remain silent when there is so much to be learned from him. His greasy lawyer will insist he shut up at the expense of more lives being lost at the hands of those he is in bed with. I get our laws and how they separate US from barbaric justice systems and in 99.9% of cases I'm all about it. Other times, such as the Auroa shooter, whose name I won't give him the delight of mentioning, when guilt is absolute I wish we could just do away with them and quit wasting our time and money on them, after extracting info of course which he shouldn't have the right to keep secret. That's just a lone wolf who after caught and questioned poses no more threat. It's even more infuriating when someone connected to an Islamic sleeper cell that is bent on killing US is allowed to keep quiet about what he knows.

However, we are a land that affords more great rights to its citizens, criminal or not, than most, if not all others. Great rights come with great responsibilities and aren't guaranteed to please everybody all the time. Because of free speech we can insult others and our government without persecution. That p***es off the guy at the receiving end but he has the right to fire back. And if we are to remain a fair and responsible justice system I guess that comes at the expense of my own anger in some cases and we have to stick to principles but I still wouldn't bat an eyelash if we tied him to four horses to draw and quarter answers out of him. Some people just deserve the worst, like this guy.

Also, the media needs to stop showing pictures of him as a young kid. He's a full grown adult who made his own decisions and I hate watching him being portrayed as a naïve victim who was tricked into this even if he was.

Edited April 22, 2013 by -Mr_Fess-

[Jeremiah65]

The "War on Terrorism" is not a formal war. I am not going to pretend to be able to explain the difference, but it basically equates to declaring war on an ideology...a religion...a war on thought...a war on drugs...oh wait...yeah we know well that one is working out.

A declaration of war has to at some point come to an end...you CANNOT have liberty and perpetual war...they are incompatible. There comes a time when you win, lose or call a truce. All this mockery has done is create a police state environment where the rules are subject to change at a whim and without warning...a state of affairs where the Constitution and the Bill of Rights can be cast aside "for the good of the people"...(sheeple?)

What bothers me the most about the people with their torches and pitchforks calling for the monster is that they are so short sighted that they don't know how this could effect themselves in the future. What happens when you suddenly are considered a "possible threat"? You do realize there are "guidelines" that include "hoarding food or ammunition, attending Libertarian or Constitution party meetings....or...if you are missing a finger...you "might" be considered a threat.

Are you ready for them to throw your rights out at that time? I don't think so...I would imagine you would expect the opportunity to defend yourself and confirm your innocence. Not like we are innocent until proven guilty or anything like that.

We must adhere to our principles even when it is unpleasant or even painful...if we do not...we have nothing.

Just my opinion...

Edited April 22, 2013 by Jeremiah65

[docyabut2]

If they can prove they have ties to the ememy, they should be tired in a military court. Declaring war on an ideology? This ideology sure is real by plots to blow everything up and kill people.Sounds more like a war.

Al Qaeda-linked plot to attack passenger train broken up by Canadian, U.S. authorities

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2RFFQySqV

Edited April 23, 2013 by docyabut2

[+Paranoid Android]

I just figured that if a civilian conspires with a foreign entity to betray and kill his own countrymen then that would be a traitor.

I'm not arguing what you say but I will note that [radical] Islam is every bit political as it is religious. Although...

And which foreign entity is he conspiring with? What government acknowledges the legitimacy of this entity's authority?

[+Paranoid Android]

What I find worrisome is that the propaganda effort by the media is preparing the masses (and they've responded predictably) to accept the fact that if the government says so, the Miranda practice is optional.

The Fourth Amendment was nullified by the Patriot Act 10 years ago, Habeas just last year, and now the Fifth Amendment will be nullified formally by way of this event.

From what I understand this is only temporary and cab only be used in a limited fashion. In this case, to determine a clear and present threat to the American people - were they working alone? Who else may be out there who could potentially continue their campaign of terror?

The law here is not a blanket that can be thrown over the situation to deny him all rights. Once they determine that there is no immediate threat to the American people he will be read his rights. Personally, I have no issue with that.

[F3SS]

And which foreign entity is he conspiring with? What government acknowledges the legitimacy of this entity's authority?

Does a foreign entity have to be something officially affiliated with a government? I don't know man. I said I respect the law. Forgive me if I'm p***ed that this guy has any rights at all. He put a bomb next to an 8 year old kid, killed him, blew he sisters legs off, destroyed his mothers brain and did who knows what to the psyche of the father/husband and you can see pictures of the scum standing next to his trash brother in the crowd smirking about his deads laughing all the way to Miranda land with 3 meals a day. And I shoud fight for his rights? Please. I won't deny them but I won't fight for them either.

[flbrnt]

A citizen taking on the role of a terrorist in effect becomes a enemy combatant.

By your reasoning committing treason is not possible. If you try you merely become an enemy combatant, the Geneva convention applies and after the fighting is over you go where you please.

[F3SS]

Not to mention the precedent it sets. Take an oath, become a citizen. That way it covers your as5 and it's extra insulting. Is this going to be the future of terrorism here?

[+Paranoid Android]

Does a foreign entity have to be something officially affiliated with a government? I don't know man. I said I respect the law. Forgive me if I'm p***ed that this guy has any rights at all. He put a bomb next to an 8 year old kid, killed him, blew he sisters legs off, destroyed his mothers brain and did who knows what to the psyche of the father/husband and you can see pictures of the scum standing next to his trash brother in the crowd smirking about his deads laughing all the way to Miranda land with 3 meals a day. And I shoud fight for his rights? Please. I won't deny them but I won't fight for them either.

Legally, treason can only be invoked when a person betrays your country to a foreign country. Al Qaeda is not recognised as having any legal authority. It has no national borders (indeed Al Qaeda exists in many countries, including dare I say, America).

If I sent an email to someone in America urging them to kill other Americans, and someone does it, can they be tried as traitors? Can they say "Paranoid Android told me to do it"? As an Australian, does my encouragement of murderingAmericans mean that I am classed as a foreign entity?

*note, this is an hypothetical example only. I do not condone the murder of Americans or any other nationality.

[F3SS]

I see what you're saying. But this is al queda. Not just a couple crazy people from different countries. They are huge and global but we know where their orders come from. Foreign countries. Call it something else if you want, just give it the death penalty. I'm just mad man.

Edited April 23, 2013 by -Mr_Fess-