Obama urged to use 'Combatant Status' on suspect

NOTES:
*I am putting this in the 'Social Issues and Civil Unrest' category for a specific reason; the potential outcome of what the story here could lead to.
*Scanned this site and did not find a thread on this specific topic. If I overlooked something, my apologies.

There is a story on FNC saying that there is a move to have Dzhokhar Tsarnaev tried under 'combatant status'. This would deny him a jury trial and an attorney for his defense.

Link to story: www.foxnews.com...

Now, this guy may be guilty as sin but the moment you deny him those rights, you are assuming him guilty until proven guilty. This kind of action runs counter to everything this nation supposedly stands for and even though he may be responsible for the killing and maiming of those people in Boston, we should hold to our ideals.

We already have a large (and growing) portion of America concerned that our central government is growing too powerful and may have an agenda to reduce/remove our own rights. This action on the bombing suspect would feed directly into that trend and could create more unrest and distrust in our government than is already so pronounced.

Give the guy a fair trial. Let the public have access to the testimony. If we fail here, the outcome will be that any conviction will be forever questioned.

geeze these last 4 years have made sure i'm never moving to America


What dicks. even if he did do it, which i dont even think he did....

they couldn't kill him, he was too smart and too strong, now they need to shut him up other ways

Ive never been a fan of the ACLU but if they do this to him, Im hoping they jump in.
Something like this could set a very dangerous precedent for the US

reply to post by redoubt


I would suspect the public at large will cheer this on as well.

As the saying goes, "First they came for the Socialists...".

From the interview with the Aunt yesterday, she indicated there are four lawyers in the family. This will be the first time that someone with a standing will be able to challenge the NDAA before the courts.

That could be any of us one day.

By the way, didn't we use plain old American justice to convict Timothy McVeigh?

Didn't he end up at the dead end of a death sentence?

reply to post by GrantedBail


Yeah, I tried commenting to this story at FNC... which was a waste of time. Most people there are fully in favor of guilty until proven guilty in a sound proof room at an undisclosed location.

So... If Obama does this, he'll have made the case for years about civilian trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the worst of the worst left down in Gitmo (The ones still there are those for whom even the MOST creative efforts of explanation cannot make them look good anymore).

He'll have made his Presidency, in some ways, on bashing the stuffing out of Bush, Cheney and the rest for how they handled honest to goodness foreign born and foreign captured fighters, taken while IN combat with US forces.

All this, of what he's "stood for", will be so much nonsense and trash for the tabloids if he agrees to change the status of a legal American resident...no matter what he did. I don't CARE what the man did. Even Timmy McVeigh got his due process. However QUICK it was (and should have been, too), he still GOT his process and our system worked well enough.

There is nothing about THIS situation that is so unique to say an American resident busted for committing an act of mass murder and attempted mass murder cannot be processed and buried (literally if that be the sentence) just like McVeigh and others before him. This was NOT an act of war. That raises it to a level which gives FAR too much credit to a couple losers with pressure cookers and far too much time to kill people with them.

How can they do this? Here is how:

As a result of an exception to Miranda called The Public Safety Rule, the suspect can—and will—be questioned without being ‘Mirandized” for the purpose of determining if there is an imminent threat to the public safety. In this instance, any information Tsarnaev provides the specialized team that will be interrogating him will remain admissible at trial, even though he has not received his Miranda warnings.

However, this exception to Miranda begins to ‘fade’ from the moment the questioning begins. And while there is no set time limit for the exception stated in the law, it is generally assumed that the period for such questioning to determine whether an immediate public threat may exist typically cannot extend for more than forty-eight hours

Seems this is being pushed in part by South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham. Story and more from this angle here: www.forbes.com... -enemy-combatant/

Senator Lindsey Graham Says Suspend the Constitution For Boston Marathon Suspect And Designate Him An Enemy Combatant

And also from that link:

Beyond this invocation of the Public Safety Rule, Tsarneav will be accorded all the rights of due process prescribed by the Constitution, including a civil trial before a jury of his peers.He will have the right to be silent and will be entitled to a lawyer.

Were Lindsey Graham to have his way, due process rights would never be afforded the bombing suspect who is an American citizen. This would include his right to a civilian trial as, were he to be designated an enemy combatant, Tsarneav would be tried by a military tribunal where the constitutional protections extended to the rest of us are virtually non-existent.

Keep in mind that the horrible crimes that Mr. Tsarneav is accused of committing occurred on US soil and that, no matter how heinous the terrorist acts Tsareav is alleged to have carried out, he remains an American citizen with all the rights that come with the status. Also keep in mind that, in this country, we are all innocent until proven guilty.

From the Op the other players are:

Sens. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina; John McCain, Arizona; and Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire, said. “The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent.”

Read more: www.foxnews.com...


This is a bad idea and can and will be misused on American Citizens of which Mr. Tsarneav is one. If they can get away with this crap undermining the US Constitution, what or Who is next?

Before this becomes an Obama slam let's note who is doing this "urging".

Top Republican senators urged President Obama on Saturday to hold the suspect captured in the Boston Marathon bombing as a potential enemy combatant -- denying him a government-appointed attorney and other legal rights under the “Law of War” so investigators can learn about other possible attacks.

If he gets treated fairly with a trial and jury then he will have his time to speak and his lawyers will have a chance to prove him innocent. And what would happen if he was actually innocent?

Can't have that happen after the Manhunt can we?

Peace

reply to post by intrepid


Good point and well taken, thank you.

Personally, I no longer draw distinctions between the two major political denominations. They're like two fat turd piles... just with different kinds of flies buzzing around them.

EDIT: My apologies if the reply to intrepid seems off topic but, unfortunately, I don't know how one can rank politics outside the bounds of the subject here.

Thanks

reply to post by intrepid

100% agreed there, Intrepid. I'd say with conviction here that Obama doesn't earn any slamming simply by having this suggested to him by those I'd say are pretty far out of line.

He may very well tell them where to go with their idea, quietly or not so quietly. To be blunt, my respect for him would rise just a hair. Nothing dramatic, but it would be a moment of Presidential strength shown.

The easy way out is to declare this guy an 'Enemy Combatant' because he goes into a system largely blacked out and hidden from public view in all ways at that point. It's the path of least resistance. The tough call will be to see this through and keep the Faith to what he's sworn to uphold while watching this man put through the system for better or worse on outcome.

Just my two cents ..and really, you raise an important point. Obama doesn't need slammed now for merely what he 'may' do.

Are they afraid the evidence wont find him guilty? Or do they fear his Al Qaeda friends if he has them, he might do now if he didnt before, will give him the very best lawyer?

Sounds like fear to me...

While we know the man is guilty that is no doubt about it, denying an US citizens his rights should never be allowed in our open and democratic society

Beside that, I see not reason why he can not be squeezed for more information, but then again him having rights will not allow room for the interrogation tactics the government wants to inflict on him.

Be careful people what you wish for, as this tagging and status change on "suspect to combatant" can happen to any American citizens regardless of guilty charge or not

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Tough call because they have already killed the brother so it would be odd if they were fair to this guy.

The danger is any terrorist then in future may never get a fair trial. Then again the muslims in their country of origin would probably get beheaded or what ever if they did this against their own people, so maybe their style of dicipline is called for.

I just feel they need to release more evidence.. for the general public thats all. And not hide the facts...

reply to post by redoubt

Now, this guy may be guilty as sin but the moment you deny him those rights, you are assuming him guilty until proven guilty. This kind of action runs counter to everything this nation supposedly stands for and even though he may be responsible for the killing

Was this the one that just got his US Citizenship on Sept 11 last year? I heard something on the radio about this. If these guys get their citizenship before they do stupid stuff like this, they expect to be treated differently. In other words, they won't go to Gitmo.....
To me, this stuff smacks of the Sleepers in ex KGB Yuri Besmenov's lectures.
And the family is Russian/Chechen to boot!

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
So... If Obama does this, he'll have made the case for years about civilian trials for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the worst of the worst left down in Gitmo (The ones still there are those for whom even the MOST creative efforts of explanation cannot make them look good anymore).

He'll have made his Presidency, in some ways, on bashing the stuffing out of Bush, Cheney and the rest for how they handled honest to goodness foreign born and foreign captured fighters, taken while IN combat with US forces.

All this, of what he's "stood for", will be so much nonsense and trash for the tabloids if he agrees to change the status of a legal American resident...no matter what he did. I don't CARE what the man did. Even Timmy McVeigh got his due process. However QUICK it was (and should have been, too), he still GOT his process and our system worked well enough.

There is nothing about THIS situation that is so unique to say an American resident busted for committing an act of mass murder and attempted mass murder cannot be processed and buried (literally if that be the sentence) just like McVeigh and others before him. This was NOT an act of war. That raises it to a level which gives FAR too much credit to a couple losers with pressure cookers and far too much time to kill people with them.

edit on 20-4-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)

unless he was framed.... and thats the main issue people keep diverting from, odd

I would think for them to try him as an Enemy Combatant they would have to KNOW, Seen, have Poof that he was in fact an Enemy Combatant. ( they can know in wartime because they see, observe the actions of the soldiers)

This guy is Only a suspect. No one observed him doing anything illegal. It therefore would be dead wrong to try him as an Enemy Combatant. If you take away due process of Law for American citizens for someone who wasn't even observed committing a crime, they will misuse this on anyone they choose.

Now that they have striped the US Constitution from us in this manner - whats worse.. this bombing or the corruption in our government. I'd rather see 100 bombings as terrible as that sounds then see them usurp the Constitution this way. The corrupt politicians will cause much greater harm to the American People in the future with this precedent.

Also note the group that will be doing the interrogation is Obama's own " High Value Interrogation Group " or HIG. I had never heard of this so I looked it up.

The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Group (HIG) is an intelligence-gathering group created by the President of the United States in August 2009.[1] Its charter was drawn up in April 2010.[2] It was established to question terrorism suspects as soon as possible after their arrest in order to quickly extract information from them to head off any plots that might be about to unfold, and track down anyone who may have assisted the suspect.[2]

The group works mainly through interrogating overseas targets. The Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair stated in January 2010 that the group would extend its area of oversight to domestic targets as well.[3] The group is made up of intelligence professionals from many branches of the U.S. government including the United States Department of State, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), and United States Department of Defense, is housed within the FBI, and run under the auspices of the National Security Council.[2]

The group's creation shifted power from the CIA and the FBI to the White House.[1][4]

The unit is run headed by an FBI employee with two deputies (one from the CIA, and one from the U.S. Defense Department), and has three regional teams. It is staffed by linguists, terrorist analysts, and professional interrogators, and supplemented by other government specialists.

en.wikipedia.org...

This should be a non issue. Does James Holmes get a trial? Even if both of them may very well be "guilty as sin" why is it one is labeled a terroist, and the other not? I guess what I'm saying is if he is considered a "combatant" I'm left to guess why the two incidents are held in different regards? Both of these men if guilty incited equal amounts of fear did they not? It just seems more like picking and choosing who gets a trial. I'm sure they have more then enough evidence. If they want to shut up "nuts who shout conspiracy" at everything as of late then go through due process. If they want to breed more doubt and distrust then label him a combatant and forgo the trial.