I just saw Jay Carney on CNN and he said..........

[suncat05]

that "bomber boy" will not be tried as an enemy combatant. And so the foul-ups continue.........

[dan_bgblue]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/22/white-house-says-boston-bombing-suspect-will-not-be-treated-as-enemy-combatant/

[Doc]

Actually I'm fine with that in this case. The suspect is a US citizen hence should be afforded the rights of any US citizen. I should note that if there is a link to Al Qaeda or an Al Qaeda-linked group, or any other terrorist group, then all bets are off.

[suncat05]

I respectfully disagree Doc. Whether he has actual ties to any terrorists or not, you can bet his brother had plenty, and brothers in real life and the terrorist business talk to each other. He knows something, even if by some miracle of extra-dimensional time warp he doesn't consciously know it. But now we're not going to get that info because Holder & Obama have given him protections he doesn't deserve. And they've messed over the American people again by giving this murdering terrorist protections he isn't entitled to. So any terror related info he may have and that we could have used to protect our country are now gone.........forever.
This guy needed to be put in Gitmo and treated as an enemy combatant.........until they got the info from him they needed. Now that he's been allowed to "lawyer up" we will never get that intelligence info. Once again Obama & Holder put their political agenda above the needs of the American people. That's how I see this.

[badrose]

It's a WMD charge and it gets a death sentence.

[Catonahottinroof]

I feared this would happen. Had the brother not gone to Chechnya and hit the Russian security service's radar, then you might assume they were a two man operation. They've had help and the financial records may show this later on.

He needs to go to Gitmo where he will crack like a papershell pecan.

[Doc]

I respectfully disagree Doc. Whether he has actual ties to any terrorists or not, you can bet his brother had plenty, and brothers in real life and the terrorist business talk to each other. He knows something, even if by some miracle of extra-dimensional time warp he doesn't consciously know it. But now we're not going to get that info because Holder & Obama have given him protections he doesn't deserve. And they've messed over the American people again by giving this murdering terrorist protections he isn't entitled to. So any terror related info he may have and that we could have used to protect our country are now gone.........forever.
This guy needed to be put in Gitmo and treated as an enemy combatant.........until they got the info from him they needed. Now that he's been allowed to "lawyer up" we will never get that intelligence info. Once again Obama & Holder put their political agenda above the needs of the American people. That's how I see this.

I 'm just old school I guess. To me, being an American citizen has some value. To me, it means that when you are accused of committing a crime in this country you are assured of certain rights. I DO NOT automatically attribute the same protection to all people but do to all American citizens. I did not agree with the plan to try Kalhid Sheik Mohammad in civilian courts or doing the same with Slaiman Abu Ghayth. Neither were US citizens. To me that does make a difference.

Of course the plan to grant amnesty to millions of illegals might change my point of view.

As for lawyering up, I'd wager that a plea bargain will be in the future to keep a needle out of his arm. That will be enough incentive for him to spill his guts. Sticking him in GITMO is no guarantee he will talk because this administration has shown they won't go that route. Stick him in GITMO and there is a far greater chance he will be released. Stick him in prison and he won't last much longer. However in GITMO there is a chance he will walk out while in a prison I'd bet it more likely he exits in a bag.

[ukblue]

Did anyone think for one second that these two would be tried as terriosts?

[suncat05]

While he may be "an American citizen", what he did clearly falls under treasonous acts, and since he's a naturalized citizen, to me, that being the case, all bets are off with him. Since he's technically a traitor, he should get the full treatment.
He should have his American citizenship revoked, no questions asked. And since the Feds are going to try him in a civilian court, if found guilty he needs to be put to death. Period.
I think we both want the same thing, Doc, we just don't agree on the method to get there. So in that respect I still must respectfully disagree with you on the approach.

[suncat05]

I saw on Drudge this morning that the dead brother and his family were on welfare for a period of time. If true, that's not a big surprise, since the big "O" loves his Muslim brothers & fellow Communists and all of his 'free stuff lovers' so much more than he loves real Americans.
My God, I detest these people more than I can physically express!!

[bigsky]

My God, I detest these people more than I can physically express!!

The whole toboggan ride is speeding downhill.

[suncat05]

The whole toboggan ride is speeding downhill.

Even moreso than we can probably imagine! :mad0176:

[ukblue]

The only reason to of taken the kid alive was to try to get information from him about other people that might of been involved as someone from the WH stated. Of course as soon as you read him his mirandize rights that is out the window.

[Doc]

Why is it that folks believe that as soon as somebody is Mirandize they suddenly become mute? Folks who have been mirandize talk all the time in an effort to minimize their punishment. I'd fully expect that this guys only way to be alive in 10 years is to spill his guts. IMO any decent lawyer is going to let him know its in his best interests to open up and plea bargain. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for interrogating the hell out of enemy combatants. But I don't believe E.C.'s that are not US citizens are entitled to the same treatment as US citizens.

There is also a misconception about the public safety issue. Its not a long term thing. Some have reported its a 48 hr reprieve. Incorrect. Public safety is for the IMMEDIATE safety. The example used was a guy with a holster but no gun. The police do not need to mirandize before asking where is the gun. However they can't hold him for 2 days on that. In this case, if there were immediate concerns about more bombs, then the police have an obligation to ask about additional explosives right at that time, but its not a means by which you can circumvent the law of the land. You don't need to waterboard everybody to get information!

[Catonahottinroof]

A plea will be useless in this case Doc. Massachusetts has no death penalty. The Attorney General of this particular administration will not enforce that under his jurisdiction either.
He will be in prison for life eventually being a martyr to a cell mate who despises his crime.
Any attorney worth his salt knows the administration may dangle the death penalty for leverage, but doesn't have the cajones to use it

[dan_bgblue]

In this case, I believe the bomber gave up his right to US citizenship and every "right" that goes with it when he intentionally committed an act of war against other citizens of this country. Not only was it an act of war against the citizens of this country, it was an act of war against the fabric of this country.

I would support any means to extract information from him, and he does not deserve to be represented by taxpayer funded appointed counsel either.

[Darrell KSR]

A plea will be useless in this case Doc. Massachusetts has no death penalty. The Attorney General of this particular administration will not enforce that under his jurisdiction either.
He will be in prison for life eventually being a martyr to a cell mate who despises his crime.
Any attorney worth his salt knows the administration may dangle the death penalty for leverage, but doesn't have the cajones to use it

Massachusetts state law isn't being applied here; he's been charged in federal court. The death penalty is viable.

[Doc]

In this case, I believe the bomber gave up his right to US citizenship and every "right" that goes with it when he intentionally committed an act of war against other citizens of this country. Not only was it an act of war against the citizens of this country, it was an act of war against the fabric of this country.

I would support any means to extract information from him, and he does not deserve to be represented by taxpayer funded appointed counsel either.

While I in no stretch of the imagination believe he is innocent, one of the basic principles of our legal system is and always will be the presumption of innocence until proven guilty in the court of law, not the court of public opinion based on media reports and tidbits leaked from the government. Do I think he is guilty? Absolutely. And do I hope he fries (not only here on earth but also for eternal damnation in hell-with his 72 virgins)? Absolutely. But does that mean we should ignore or alter how we as a nation determine justice on our citizens? Nope. The law isn't there for convenience so that we can ignore it when we want and apply it when we want. Were he not a US citizen then all bets are off, or if there was clearly a foreign connection determined through a full investigation then I'd prefer he be dealt with as in a military court. But we as a nation decided we want to afford all our citizens, even the bad ones, with certain protections and rights. Its situations like this that test that resolve.

[CitizenBBN]

This is a tough one b/c he's a US citizen. Were he not a citizen clearly IMO this is a military matter, an act of war, an attack on us as a nation and not a civilian crime. Since he is a citizen it is a tougher decision, and IMO it probably falls under Article III, Section III of the Constitution, the "treason clause".

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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

There's no need for WMD case here. He committed an act of war against the US, and was ahdering to our Enemies. It's pretty clearly treason. The WMD thing is an absurdity IMO, almost an intellectual insult. A bomb in a backpack, unless it contained weaponized smallpox, is not a WMD. It was incapable of leveling the city of Boston or killing thousands, no matter how tightly they stood around the thing as it went off. That's not a WMD.

It is however an act of treason. The Founders make it pretty clear that for citizens this is to be handled through the Constitution and not as a military matter, and that the Congress can set the penalty for it. What is not clear is if it requires use of the normal judiciary or could be done in some special tribunal of the Judiciary, but as there is nothing to say it must or should be separate I tend to think it should follow the normal judicial structure.

SCOTUS has ruled that there must be more than one person for it to mee the standard of "levying war", which is met given it was the two brothers. There must also be 2 witnesses if not a confession, so the confession of this man is very important. If he will confess in open Court, we can convict him summarily of treason and hang him on the lawn of the Capital, which is exactly what we should do. I think a nice natural wood gallows, nothing fancy, old West style, would be the way to go.

For better or worse the Founders didn't do much to account for the need for military intelligence when not an act of war, at least in this section, but I would like to find time to go back and read their views on some of the cases that did arise during the Revoluationary war. That may tell us more about what they thought may be a matter of military justice and not a question of civilian treason.

[Catonahottinroof]

Massachusetts state law isn't being applied here; he's been charged in federal court. The death penalty is viable.

It's viable Darrell, my point is this administration doesn't have the fortitude to use it.

[dan_bgblue]

Doc, you and I do not disagree on much in this matter. My opinion is that he gave up any citizen rights when he and his brother did what they did. They were acting in lock step with foreign enemies of this country to wage their own brand of war. Your thoughts seem to say that once a person is a citizen they are always a citizen and should be treated as one. I think you would agree that if a person, born and raised in the USA, renounces their citizenship, moves to Canada and applies for citizenship there, they should no longer have the rights of a US citizen.

It is my opinion, that when the brothers set off the bombs in Boston, they renounced their citizenship in this country and applied for citizenship in one that believes blowing up innocent people with IEDs is an acceptable way to live.

[suncat05]

There is a whole lot more at play here. I originally stated that this was an act of war, and I still stand by that. And yes, the death penalty will be dangled like a ripe carrot, but unless it's a natural born American citizen that likes his 2nd Amendament rights, this administration doesn't have the stones to execute him, because deep down inside his evil heart, the big "O" has empathy for him because he's a Muslim, just like his natural father was.
It has also come to light that the mother & son had several phone conversations recorded by the Russians that clearly indicate intent on his part, with malice aforethought, to commit crimes against Americans. That alone, and because he is a naturalized American citizen, makes it treason, which I also stated. And that the FBI blew off. You know, because whoever the agent was that did the interview did not see a credible threat, and whom I am sure will probably be climbing the corporate ladder of the same FBI soon and making policy decisions that will get more Americans injured/killed. That's the whole rewarding incompetence thing that the Federal government is so good at, especially under this administration.
I'm with CBBN........ let's build a gallows on the Courthouse lawn, and I'll spring for the damn rope.
What we want as a nation is not what will be done. They'll put this POS in a federal prison, where we'll have to feed, clothe, and give free medical care to him for the rest of his natural life.
Have any of you listened to his mother talk? That woman is crazier than an outhouse rat, and she hates America. If it were me, I'd be working the angles to connect her to this and get her in custody as well. Then she can join her son on the gallows(Oh wait, that'll NEVER happen!).
Trust me guys, this administration will find a way to mess this up, in short order and high fashion, and it'll either be by design or because of sheer stupidity because of their liberal views.

[Doc]

This is a tough one b/c he's a US citizen. Were he not a citizen clearly IMO this is a military matter, an act of war, an attack on us as a nation and not a civilian crime. Since he is a citizen it is a tougher decision, and IMO it probably falls under Article III, Section III of the Constitution, the "treason clause".

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. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

There's no need for WMD case here. He committed an act of war against the US, and was ahdering to our Enemies. It's pretty clearly treason. The WMD thing is an absurdity IMO, almost an intellectual insult. A bomb in a backpack, unless it contained weaponized smallpox, is not a WMD. It was incapable of leveling the city of Boston or killing thousands, no matter how tightly they stood around the thing as it went off. That's not a WMD.

It is however an act of treason. The Founders make it pretty clear that for citizens this is to be handled through the Constitution and not as a military matter, and that the Congress can set the penalty for it. What is not clear is if it requires use of the normal judiciary or could be done in some special tribunal of the Judiciary, but as there is nothing to say it must or should be separate I tend to think it should follow the normal judicial structure.

SCOTUS has ruled that there must be more than one person for it to mee the standard of "levying war", which is met given it was the two brothers. There must also be 2 witnesses if not a confession, so the confession of this man is very important. If he will confess in open Court, we can convict him summarily of treason and hang him on the lawn of the Capital, which is exactly what we should do. I think a nice natural wood gallows, nothing fancy, old West style, would be the way to go.

For better or worse the Founders didn't do much to account for the need for military intelligence when not an act of war, at least in this section, but I would like to find time to go back and read their views on some of the cases that did arise during the Revoluationary war. That may tell us more about what they thought may be a matter of military justice and not a question of civilian treason.

I agree. Him being a US citizen is the monkey wrench. I'm all for battlefield combatants and non-citizens going thru military trials, not being mirandized, etc but not a US citizen. I don't have any issue bombing the **** out of some cave in the middle of the desert with a drone or even an ICBM, but if we are targeting US citizens then I do have an issue. In all those cases the issue for me is the US citizenship. It does make a difference.

As for the WMD case, again, spot on. Claiming WMD is a joke considering only 3 people were killed. That is hardly mass destruction. Heck, the Colorado movie theater killer was more of a mass destructor. The point of laws isn't to use them to get around other laws and do what you want.

[Doc]

Doc, you and I do not disagree on much in this matter. My opinion is that he gave up any citizen rights when he and his brother did what they did. They were acting in lock step with foreign enemies of this country to wage their own brand of war. Your thoughts seem to say that once a person is a citizen they are always a citizen and should be treated as one. I think you would agree that if a person, born and raised in the USA, renounces their citizenship, moves to Canada and applies for citizenship there, they should no longer have the rights of a US citizen.

Yes, I would agree. And if they came back into this country and blew up a courthouse, then they would not be afforded the same protections as a US citizen such as a court paid for attorney (let the country they are from foot that bill) or miranda. No, they would not be subjected to torture or in humane treatment however the rights of US citizens are given to US citizens because the US citizens fought and in some cases died so the citizens can have those protections.

It is my opinion, that when the brothers set off the bombs in Boston, they renounced their citizenship in this country and applied for citizenship in one that believes blowing up innocent people with IEDs is an acceptable way to live.

If a court of law determines they are enemy combatants then fine. They have been convicted of nothing even though they are guilty as hell in our opinions. The fact they are US citizens changes it 100% for me. I don't take it as the act of bombing = renouncing your citizenship. US citizens often revolt against their gov't and its a slippery slope. Does burning a flag equate to renouncing your citizenship? An argument could be made that it is. Does hanging the president in effigy equate to renouncing your citizenship? Does speaking out against the policies of the nation equate to renouncing your citizenship? Yes, I understand none of those acts killed anybody but in all cases they are acts against the nations principles and suddenly that opens that approach.

,,

[Doc]

There is a whole lot more at play here. I originally stated that this was an act of war, and I still stand by that. And yes, the death penalty will be dangled like a ripe carrot, but unless it's a natural born American citizen that likes his 2nd Amendament rights, this administration doesn't have the stones to execute him, because deep down inside his evil heart, the big "O" has empathy for him because he's a Muslim, just like his natural father was.
It has also come to light that the mother & son had several phone conversations recorded by the Russians that clearly indicate intent on his part, with malice aforethought, to commit crimes against Americans. That alone, and because he is a naturalized American citizen, makes it treason, which I also stated. And that the FBI blew off. You know, because whoever the agent was that did the interview did not see a credible threat, and whom I am sure will probably be climbing the corporate ladder of the same FBI soon and making policy decisions that will get more Americans injured/killed. That's the whole rewarding incompetence thing that the Federal government is so good at, especially under this administration.
I'm with CBBN........ let's build a gallows on the Courthouse lawn, and I'll spring for the damn rope.
What we want as a nation is not what will be done. They'll put this POS in a federal prison, where we'll have to feed, clothe, and give free medical care to him for the rest of his natural life.
Have any of you listened to his mother talk? That woman is crazier than an outhouse rat, and she hates America. If it were me, I'd be working the angles to connect her to this and get her in custody as well. Then she can join her son on the gallows(Oh wait, that'll NEVER happen!).
Trust me guys, this administration will find a way to mess this up, in short order and high fashion, and it'll either be by design or because of sheer stupidity because of their liberal views.

IIRC your spouse is an immigrant who legally became a citizen. Is her citizenship less than yours because she wasn't born here? Is it something that can be removed at the whim of the government without being convicted of anything because they believe she might have committed a crime. Not in my opinion. Does that open us up to some abuse of that? Sure but its one of those things I'd prefer to error on the side of granting rights and protections than not. Realistically it does not matter because the guy is guilty and going to be punished appropriately regardless. If that means he is convicted of treason or an act of war and he ends up swinging in the breeze with a noose around his neck, it will be too good for him. I'd prefer something more painful that takes longer for him to die. Unfortunately our laws prohibit death by cruel or unusual means because I'd be fine with dismembering him slowly.

And will Holder and Obama screw this up? Likely but he won't get away with it. Not going to happen regardless.

[CitizenBBN]

doc -- the WMD thing is a dangerous precedent. Just like the nonsense of a "hate crime", I think most of us can easily see Obama or any future President with an ax to grind invoking such a charge over a gun or some other device clearly not a WMD if it suited their purpose.

Just any bomb isn't a WMD, and I really don't see the need to try to make it one in this case. He committed an act of treason, killed 3 people and injured many more. Surely we can find a way to claim federal jurisdiction without it being a WMD and once it's federal the death penalty is an option for the murders.

I don't think he's less of a citizen for having been naturalized, I know lots of people born here who I wish didn't get citizenship as a matter of birthright, but the Founders did in their time encounter similar situations with both naturalized and born citizens. The Constitution itself is clear how treason is to be treated, but spies and others were hanged after a military trial during the Revolutionary War and in other times while the Founders were alive and largely running the nation. I need to look at those incidents to see where the line goes from a civilian engaging in treason to a citizen becoming a combatant who has forfeited citizenship.

There is one angle to this I haven't seen discussed yet: if his citizenship is in fact valid. If he obtained citizenship under false pretense, i.e. he had long planned to attack the US and obtaining citizenship was part of a long term effort to place himself for such an attack, it's not clear if he's even a citizen or not. Not saying he's not or is, but it's an interesting legal and Constitutional question IMO. If a foreign deep cover spy becomes a naturalized citizen as part of his long term efforts on behalf of a foreign government or enemy I'm not sure he ever became a US citizen as his citizenship is just part of a broader act of espionage and/or act of war against the US.

[suncat05]

Again, Doc, I believe we want to see the same thing, we just don't agree on the means to get there.
Yes, my wife and kids are all naturalized American citizens, and no, their citizenship IS NOT LESS THAN MINE! They are all hard working, productive, viable citizens who honor and love the United States of America. They are not making bombs and killing/maiming innocents for any religious idealism.
CBBN made a very good point in his last post, that being that there could be a question of why the brothers sought U.S. citizenship, and if it can be proved that their intent was to infilitrate and cause subterfuge by using that citizenship, then yes, we can call into question their citizenship. Which I do/have anyway. And CBBN's question of constitutionality of their citizenship is correct too, IMHO.
Whatever can be done to nail this guy to the cross is what needs to be done, but there again, we are dealing with a weak President & DOJ who are more concerned with disarming lawful U.S. citizens and subverting the Constitution than they are about getting justice for the victims of this attack. JMHO. Yours may differ.

[KSRBEvans]

It's well-settled that American citizens can be tried as enemy combatants, even when they act on US soil. Herbert Haupt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hans_Haupt), a US citizen who joined the German army and returned to the US to commit sabotage, was captured and sentenced to death by a military tribunal. The US Supreme Court upheld his conviction in Ex Parte Quirin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Quirin) and he was executed in 1942.

IMHO the better question is whether these guys are unlawful enemy combatants. The evidence is circumstantial and indirect at this point, but if the government can prove that, then he should be treated an an enemy combatant and given the same due process Haupt received.

[ukblue]

Why is it that folks believe that as soon as somebody is Mirandize they suddenly become mute? Folks who have been mirandize talk all the time in an effort to minimize their punishment. I'd fully expect that this guys only way to be alive in 10 years is to spill his guts. IMO any decent lawyer is going to let him know its in his best interests to open up and plea bargain. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for interrogating the hell out of enemy combatants. But I don't believe E.C.'s that are not US citizens are entitled to the same treatment as US citizens.

There is also a misconception about the public safety issue. Its not a long term thing. Some have reported its a 48 hr reprieve. Incorrect. Public safety is for the IMMEDIATE safety. The example used was a guy with a holster but no gun. The police do not need to mirandize before asking where is the gun. However they can't hold him for 2 days on that. In this case, if there were immediate concerns about more bombs, then the police have an obligation to ask about additional explosives right at that time, but its not a means by which you can circumvent the law of the land. You don't need to waterboard everybody to get information!

You are right Doc, they can talk if they want to. The decision is theirs however and the decision to mirandize terroists is a act of a delusional justice department.

[CitizenBBN]

It's well-settled that American citizens can be tried as enemy combatants, even when they act on US soil. Herbert Haupt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hans_Haupt), a US citizen who joined the German army and returned to the US to commit sabotage, was captured and sentenced to death by a military tribunal. The US Supreme Court upheld his conviction in Ex Parte Quirin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Quirin) and he was executed in 1942.

IMHO the better question is whether these guys are unlawful enemy combatants. The evidence is circumstantial and indirect at this point, but if the government can prove that, then he should be treated an an enemy combatant and given the same due process Haupt received.

Was hoping you'd post on this thread BEvans. I'll have to read that SCOTUS decision.

[Doc]

It's well-settled that American citizens can be tried as enemy combatants, even when they act on US soil. Herbert Haupt (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Hans_Haupt), a US citizen who joined the German army and returned to the US to commit sabotage, was captured and sentenced to death by a military tribunal. The US Supreme Court upheld his conviction in Ex Parte Quirin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_Parte_Quirin) and he was executed in 1942.

IMHO the better question is whether these guys are unlawful enemy combatants. The evidence is circumstantial and indirect at this point, but if the government can prove that, then he should be treated an an enemy combatant and given the same due process Haupt received.

I am in no way advocating not trying them as "enemy combatants". If the pretrial evidence supports that then its the way to go. I suspect the administration won't do that but thats for another thread. However that is different than basically revolking their US citizenship status without any evidence or opportunity to the accused to defend themselves against the charges.