Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Boston bomber, citizen or enemy combatant?

boston bomber enemy combatant military court criminal court tsarnaev

  • Please log in to reply
63 replies to this topic

Poll: Boston Bomber, enemy combatant or citizen? (37 member(s) have cast votes)

Should the Bostom Bomber be tried as a citizen criminal or a military enemy combatant?

  1. Citizen criminal, he was naturalized last year (31 votes [83.78%])

    Percentage of vote: 83.78%

  2. Military enemy combatant, he is an enemy of the state (6 votes [16.22%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.22%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#31    Raptor Witness

Raptor Witness

    Savant

  • Member
  • 2,780 posts
  • Joined:17 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:So beautiful

  • ראה

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:27 AM

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 by Raptor Witness, 22 April 2013 - 05:27 AM.

Posted Image "Make Manifest Destiny a memory ..." 12-7-2011  "When the earth is displaced fully three times at the point of destiny ..." 10-29-2013

#32    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,395 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 22 April 2013 - 10:08 AM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 21 April 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:

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.

(B) 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(B) 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.


#33    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 22 April 2013 - 10:30 AM

View Postdocyabut2, on 22 April 2013 - 10:08 AM, said:

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.

( B) 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( B) 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 )

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.

#34    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:07 PM

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


#35    Babe Ruth

Babe Ruth

    Non-Corporeal Being

  • Closed
  • 8,732 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011
  • Gender:Not Selected
  • Location:27North 80West

Posted 22 April 2013 - 02:13 PM

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.


#36    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,395 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:23 PM

View PostSetton, on 22 April 2013 - 10:30 AM, said:

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.


#37    Setton

Setton

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,570 posts
  • Joined:05 Feb 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Durham, England

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:40 PM

View Postdocyabut2, on 22 April 2013 - 05:23 PM, said:

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.

'Good' is not the same as 'nice'.
'No, murder is running your broadsword through someone because he worships a different God to you... Or is that evangelism? I get confused.'
When they discover the centre of the universe, a lot of people are going to be disappointed - They are not it.
I don't object to the concept of a deity but I'm baffled by the notion of one that takes attendance.

#38    regeneratia

regeneratia

    Alien Abducter

  • Banned
  • 4,810 posts
  • Joined:20 Jun 2010
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:All my posts are my own views, my own perceptions. Will not be finding links for why I think the way I do.

  • It is time to put the big guns down now, Little Boys!

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:44 PM

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.

Truth is such a rare quality, a stranger so seldom met in this civilization of fraud, that it is never received freely, but must fight its way into the world
Professor Hilton Hotema
(quote from THE BIBLE FRAUD)

Robert Heinlein: SECRECY IS THE HALLMARK OF TYRANNY!

#39    Bama13

Bama13

    Poltergeist

  • Member
  • 2,891 posts
  • Joined:09 Aug 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Just Southeast of God's country

Posted 22 April 2013 - 06:49 PM

View PostLeave Britney alone!, on 21 April 2013 - 03:53 PM, said:


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?

" Mighty little force is needed to control a man whose mind has been hoodwinked; contrariwise, no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything —you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him" - Robert Heinlein

#40    Mr.United_Nations

Mr.United_Nations

    hi

  • Member
  • 9,304 posts
  • Joined:22 Apr 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth

Posted 22 April 2013 - 06:52 PM

View Postregeneratia, on 22 April 2013 - 05:44 PM, said:

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?


#41    F3SS

F3SS

    FoT

  • Member
  • 9,823 posts
  • Joined:11 Jun 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Pittsburgh

  • Father of Twins
    3-16-16

Posted 22 April 2013 - 09:03 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 22 April 2013 - 04:22 AM, said:

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...

View PostRaptor Witness, on 22 April 2013 - 05:27 AM, said:

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 na´ve victim who was tricked into this even if he was.

Edited by -Mr_Fess-, 22 April 2013 - 09:05 PM.


#42    Jeremiah65

Jeremiah65

    Seeker of knowledge

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,097 posts
  • Joined:25 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The mists at the edge of your dreams...

  • "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." Aristotle

Posted 22 April 2013 - 11:09 PM

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 by Jeremiah65, 22 April 2013 - 11:13 PM.

"Liberty means responsibility.  That is why most men dread it."  George Bernard Shaw
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."  Thomas Jefferson

Posted Image

#43    docyabut2

docyabut2

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,395 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 23 April 2013 - 01:18 AM

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 by docyabut2, 23 April 2013 - 01:34 AM.


#44    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 23 April 2013 - 01:39 AM

View Post-Mr_Fess-, on 22 April 2013 - 09:03 PM, said:



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?

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#45    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 28,287 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:NSW Mid-North Coast

  • Paranoid Android... *whaa--*

Posted 23 April 2013 - 01:46 AM

View PostBabe Ruth, on 22 April 2013 - 02:13 PM, said:

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.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users