Published: Wednesday, April 24 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Re: "We, too, must give Tsarnaev all the legal protections he deserves under
the law."And, don't worry Prof, we will. Calm yourself. The
only question is which law should we apply.Clearly, he can be tried
in US courts as a civilian, with the full panoply of Article III, and 4th, 5th,
and 6th Amendment protections. This is the approach the Obama regime indicates
it favors, at least, for the moment. We'll see, if the prosecution heads
south, for any reason.Just as clearly, however, he IS an enemy
combatant, taken in the act of making war against the United States, on the
battlefield he chose. Thus, he could legally be treated as such and given only
those rights guaranteed to him under the Law of War and the military commission
statute.Either way is perfectly legal, moral, and ethical,
pandering, political White House pronouncements to the contrary,
It is a very slippery slope we head down when we start charging US citizens who
act out as Terrorist as enemy combatants and there for have limited legal
rights. We have no real definition of what an enemy combatant is. Why is the
Boston incident a religiously motivated enemy combatant case, where as Terry
Nicoles and the Oklahoma City bombing not - and the 1996 Atlanta bombing not?
Granting such latitude for the government to randomly classify
people as enemy combatants is indeed very dangerous. There must be a defined
path to get to this classification, Are gang bangers enemy combatants? They
clearly act in a way to incite terri in their communities. The
Obama administration needs to be very careful here.
@UtahBlueDevil "The Obama administration needs to be very careful
here."Yes, more careful than they were last fall when they
granted him citizenship.
I believe it was Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan who argued that
"the rights of all men are diminished when the rights of one man are
threatened."I concur. The only way to insure due process for
yourself is to guarantee it to all regardless of what they are accused of. The
moment you start making exceptions, the right to due process is in jeopardy.The use of military tribunals has been justified in times of war, the
conspirators in the assassination of Lincoln and the Nuremburg trials are two
examples. But trial in a civilian court is always preferable in my view. It
demonstrates to the world that we have confidence in the system of justice that
we recommend to them.
Beautifully stated, Professor Davis. Amen and amen.
He is a citizen and therefore entitled to the protection that the law gives to
all citizens. The government must prove that he committed a crime. That should
be easy. But, even with all the evidence against him, he is entitled to a trial
with a jury consisting of other citizens.What if he had used a car
and just plowed into a group of people watching the race? What if he had been
shouting praises to his god while he did that? Would he be seen as a
non-citizen?The crime was committed in America by an American. The
"tools" he used did not change his status. The god he
"worships" does not change his citizenship.Everything he did
is despicable, but citizens commit despicable crimes every day. The number of
murders committed everyday are far greater than the number of people that he
killed. The number of people who are maimed everyday is far greater than the
number of people that he maimed. That does not diminish his crime and it also
doesn't diminish his status as a citizen to be treated as fairly as each of
us would hope to be treated.
@procuradorfiscalJust as clearly, however, he IS an enemy combatant,
taken in the act of making war against the United States, on the battlefield he
chose.==========================How so? It isn't
that clear to me. Whom was he representing? What nation/state was he
representing that declared war on the United States? What exactly is the legal
definition of an "enemy combatant"What would make him an
enemy combatant and not Timothy McVeigh? I agree it is a slippery
slope we create when we allow US citizens to be declared enemy combatants. Yes,
his crime was indeed heinous; which in my opinion only indicates the need for us
to give him his Constitutional Rights. If we as a nation can give someone who
has done something so vile as he, then our rights are also secure in the event
that we need to exercise them.
Funny how leftists get all worried and crazed about slippery slopes and
allegedly following the constitution, when it comes to protecting terrorists,
but not when it comes to gun rights for gun owners!
The thing is, if he is denied due process, whats to stop them from doing the
same thing to someone that was born in the country and lived here all their
life? Why just apply this to terrorism? The next thing you know they will be
doing the same thing to everyone no matter what the crime is. The
Republicans who want his miranda rights waved are just as bad as the Democrats.
Stop the presses, Mike Richards and I actually agree on something!
The rule of law and due process also include the provision that allows for a
person to be categorized as an enemy combatant. The overwhelming number of
Muslims have been victimized by a much smaller group of radical jihadist Muslims
who kill in the name of their religion. The war in terror is a new kind of war
against the acts of these radical killers who just happen to be Muslim. The
brothers certainly have ties to this group according to statements and to their
YouTube site with links to this group. The older brother went to Russia for 6
months recently. There are reported sightings with known terrorists. Isn't
in the public's best interest to take these facts into account and
interrogate the remaining brother in order to get more information on possible
further terrorist acts? After all, people are dead and many people were maimed
and injured? Don't these victims and the public have the right to safety in
light of the evidence against these brothers' ties to terrorism? Not
everything is about racism and Islamophobia.
nate.... i hope your comments were tongue in cheek. You really think any
administration individually reviews every single name that wants to become a
citizen, especially a minor. Good grief will, the partisan silliness never end.
If this kid gets a lawyer he will clam up and that will be the end of the intel
from him. So much for preventing another attack. I could care less about his
prison term - I care more about the intel that we could get from him - what does
he know, who does he know, etc... Liberals want to lawyers him up. Conservatives
want to interrogate this terrorist in order to prevent another future attack and
save lives. If there is another similar attack that could have been prevented
with interrogation and lives are lost who will be held accountable? Barack and
his liberals? Not a chance. America is an easy target because we have no
leadership and terrorists know it.
@UtahBlueDevil "You really think any administration individually reviews
every single name that wants to become a citizen"If they
don't, they're doing it wrong."especially a
minor"Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an adult, and he was when he became a
citizen."partisan silliness"It has nothing to do
with a party. I'm not affiliated with any party. I'm commenting on the
fact that the rights of this American citizen, over which we are agonizing
today, were granted to him by our government about a half-year ago. I'm
suggesting that we should be more careful about whom we give them to.
"....Liberals want to lawyers him up. Conservatives want to interrogate this
terrorist in order to prevent another future attack and save lives....."______________________________Conservatives have no beef with
liberals on this score. Their anger would be better directed at our
country's founders for giving us the system of justice and Bill of Rights
that we have.
Patriot.... see if you recognize any of these names. Do a little research...Osama bin LadenAnwar al-AwlakiAbu Hafs al-ShahriAtiyah
‘Abd al-RahmanIlyas KashmiriAmmar al-Wa’ili, Abu Ali
al-Harithi, and Ali Saleh FarhanHarun Fazul Younis al-MauritaniBaitullah MahsudNoordin Muhammad Top Saleh Ali Saleh NabhanSaleh al-SomaliAbdallah Sa’idAbdul Ghani Beradar Muhammad HaqqaniQari ZafarDulmatinAbu Ayyub al-Masri and Abu
Omar al-Baghdadi Sheik Saeed al-Masri Hamza al-Jawfi Plus many
more....Why don't you ask these fine gentleman if "America
is an easy target because we have no leadership and terrorists know it"I don' t think they will be answering you, because they are all Al
Queda and Taliban leaders killed or taken captive since Obama took office.
Seems Barack and his merry band of liberals have been taking names and....
well.... a heck of a lot more than the previous sherif. Lets focus
on being Americans first.... and leave the partisan games for the playground.
nate - no, I don't think any political appointees had anything to do with
his being granted citizenship. Those decisions are made by career employees who
don't represent any administration in particular. mike
richards.... your comments are spot on.Lets not forget, this is not
the first time a device like this has been used at an event like this. In 1996,
Eric Rudolph placed and exploded a like device at the Atlanta Olympics.
Rudolph was not muslim, but an evangelical christian. And there was no talk at
all about him being considered an Enemy Combatant.
Re: "What would make him an enemy combatant and not Timothy McVeigh?"Nothing I'm aware of. McVeigh was also an enemy combatant.This isn't hard. US definition -- "a person who has engaged in
hostilities or who has purposefully and materially supported hostilities against
the United States . . . ."The question of whether an enemy
combatant is a lawful combatant or not, defines whether he's an EPW, but
won't change enemy combatant status. The Supreme Court ruled US
citizen enemy combatants retain a right to review of their detention by a writ
of habeas corpus, but that doesn't change their status, either."Miranda" rights are not in the Constitution. Miranda is, rather, a
court-made scheme to assure fairness and due process in trials, not to vindicate
Fifth Amendment rights against compelled statements.Statements made
by an accused in violation of this rule would be inadmissible at trial, but who
cares? There's plenty of other evidence to convict.Try him in
court or commission? Who cares?But, whatever we do, get all the info
he has about future attacks.
@UtahBlueDevil "Those decisions are made by career employees who don't
represent any administration in particular."Why the fixation on
whether it was career employees or political appointees? They all work for the
same boss: the American people. We ought to be examining what went wrong. Why is
a man granted citizenship and seven months later is bombing one of our cities?
What did we miss in the naturalization process? Where was the disconnect?
Nope sorry guys but this terrorist needs to be treated as an enemy combatant
...that is if we care more about stopping future attacks. FDR did the same exact
thing during WWII simply because we needed the intel more than we needed to pat
ourselves on the back for giving due process. So after all your bloviating
regarding due process what answer will you have when yet another series of
pressure cooker bombs explode in major US cities killing even more innocent
children? Will you say ...well we just couldn't interrogate this kid and
treat him like the trator that he is because ...well because we are Americans
and we don't do that. HA!! Tell that to all those who lost their legs!! I
am guessing here but I would bet all those poor souls who lost their limbs in
Boston would be all for grilling this kid - free from lawyers - and getting
every ounce of intel out of him BEFORE the lawyers get hold of him and he clams
up .... and then either putting him to death or life in prison.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments