Obama urged to use 'Combatant Status' on suspect

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


That is very interesting I had no clue that the Obama administration got their own team of gestapo agency, I mean interrogation agency.

So this is a testing after all, that is how I see the whole entire Boston tragedy.

I read in your post that they have specialist? I can not even imagine what kind of "specialist they have"

reply to post by redoubt


Interesting. . . But,

There are 2 types of combatant and I am not sure everyone knows the difference.

An "Enemy Combatant" is basically defined as Anyone who is attached or otherwise affiliated with a military group.

A "Non-Enemy Combatant" is Anyone who is an aggressor towards the U.S. and is Not affiliated in any way shape or form with a military or militia.

These definitions were created (or made public) sometime after we decided to take on the Taliban.

Depending on that staus would dictate the treatment and penalties.

Correct me if I am wrong, But, I also think it has something to do with the Habeas Corpus Rights.

I also think that under Either Status you can be detained Indefinitely WithOut being charged.

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

Anything to keep POTUS' hands clean? They are not going to deny him an attorney. They are just waiting for him to wake up and are not going to read him his rights immediately. I heard on the news that they have 48 hours from the time he becomes conscious to read him his rights.

Think about this in a backwards mode with the truth at the core of the examination.

1. All laws are written for you, there are no laws written for "others."

Is there a time that you can imagine, or an event you can imagine, why you, again, you, would prefer to not to have a trial? What I mean by this is, can you say to yourself right now, "In the future, I really don't want a trial for anything I have been accused of, as where judgment of me and my actions should not be taken on by my friends and neighbors, but where judgment and penalty should simply be administered by whoever charged me."

Read the above again and see if you can get a congressman to pass a "law" that requires students to swear on this for life.

What stupid, and I mean nearly everyone, feels is that the laws only apply to those who are guilty and it would never occur to a stupid person, and I mean most of the population, that folks are not guilty of everything they have been accused of.

What stupid folks believe, and I mean most of humanity, is that an accusation is prof of guilt, and a court of law is simply there to create agreement, and if the court fails, the person is still guilty, the court just didn't do its job.

What stupid people know, and I mean nearly all people you could ever meet, is that they themselves will never, ever be wrongfully charged so this notion of no trial is fine by them. I would add, anyone who has been to court knows the process is beyond flawed, but it is a far-sight better then no trial at all.

What the ignorant do not know is that an impartial court is the ONLY place to make law, so it is incumbent on everyone to demand trials so that the entire process can be vetted. If no one ever goes to court over "enemy combatant" then there is no law, only thuggish action without debate. The reason the government is working so hard to keep certain things from going to court is allow a judge to rule on something creates law, and it is possible to negate the actions taken in route to court.

The only people who demand such efforts are people who are insane, people who are without their wits, people who are so consumed with TV that they believe the TV world to be real. TV is 100 percent responsible for this, the enemy is not the politicos it is the TV people, as the TV people are the most powerful on the planet: 3 days of 24 hour news coverage will have this kid hanged in a public square while refusing to renounce the king - if the insane people are to lead us.

Saddam was tried.
Nazi's were tried
Mubarak is, well...

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

Anything to keep POTUS' hands clean?

No, anything to keep the facts straight. Something wrong with facts?

Right. Obama himself is not calling for this action, although it will be his team that does the interrogation.

From this article www.cnn.com... and this thread www.abovetopsecret.com... we get

The government is invoking the public safety exception to question Tsarnaev, meaning in cases of national security a person can be questioned without being read their Miranda rights, a Justice Department official told CNN on condition of anonymity. The official is not authorized to publicly discuss the matter.

So according to this the Government has agreed to do this horrible thing. But as you see even CNN doesn't use any sources to confirm this.

Is there any real conformation we can agree on yet?

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

Anything to keep POTUS' hands clean?

No, anything to keep the facts straight. Something wrong with facts?

Didn't you ever hear that Reagan was expressly kept out of the loop in the Iran/Contra affair? Just because a Republican may urge something doesn't mean the POTUS is expressly exempt from any involvement in his own decision making. That being said, I do not find it impossible that this could be a set up where Democrats and POTUS in particular may have a suspect who JUST got his citizenship 6 or 7 months prior and will not want to appear to go against Constitutional rights but will allow the Republicans to take that side in the insistence of getting things done for national security. Let it be said I do not support going against Constitutional rights of American citizens. But this POTUS does NOT have a good record on this regard. Why does he go after some people like Awlaki but not a Chechen/Russian? A good birther conspiracy might suggest that POTUS has some Leninist ideology.....Just saying, POTUS didn't let Awlaki citizenship keep him from killing the guy and did he have his rights read to him even? Why now we are going to think POTUS cares about rights of citizens? I postulate he does not care and is himself not interested in American national security but only that which he can use to destroy America from within, and that might include corrupting the process by having a kid who just got his citizenship involved.

While arrests and interrogations can legally occur without the Miranda warning being given, this procedure would generally make the arrestee's pre-Miranda statements inadmissible at trial. (However, pursuant to the majority opinion in United States v. Patane, physical evidence obtained as a result of pre-Miranda statements may still be admitted.)

In some jurisdictions,[where?] a detention differs at law from an arrest, and police are not required to give the Miranda warning until the person is arrested for a crime. In those situations, a person's statements made to police are generally admissible even though the person was not advised of their rights. Similarly, statements made while an arrest is in progress before the Miranda warning was given or completed are also generally admissible.

en.wikipedia.org...


In other words, if authorities were trying to get additional information about others involved in a network or group, it would still be legal to question him before Mirandizing, but the information they got would not be admissible in a court of law, but could help authorities find other individuals.
Then when they Mirandize him, he can be lawyered up for his own case.
So in the interest of facts, let's get all of them.

Let's also talk about the facts that these types of violent actions tend to evolve from leftist organizations, and the Left was already trying to paint this incident as a right wing extremist plot. Laughable at best, considering this administrations laughable attempt to paint the Tea Party as extreme right wing violent nutjobs. It is also not inconceivable that the Clintons and other leftists Marxist types were involved in setting up the 9-11 job and making the Bush admin appear solely culpable, while the Democrats STILL voted for the PATRIOT Act at first, and then later pretended they cared about individual rights.
I've even seen people on these boards try to paint private mercenary firms as the evil guys. Wouldn't that then make POTUS appear ever so innocent?

reply to post by intrepid


Here's more "facts" for you:

Conservatives are angry that mainstream media (lie-berals) have jumped to the uninformed conjecture that the Boston Marathon bombing was committed by a "right winger."

Yes, some conservative media outliers presumed the police report of a Saudi being a "person of interest" means the U.S. should reconsider Muslim immigration, but there's a world of difference between the host of a show on American Family Radio and major media host Chris Matthews of MSNBC, driving his partisan hack into the ditch presuming the Boston Marathon bomber is a conservative.
The reasoning Matthews and Representative William Keating (D-Mass.) employ is that Monday was Tax Day and Patriots Day. Because Timothy McVeigh blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building on Patriots Day in 1995. That's it. Others have pointed to David Koresh. The difference is that the Branch Davidian horror ended an ill-conceived 50-day assault on their compound by Janet Reno.

www.blogster.com...

So this is pretty much what I think about your attempt to paint Republicans as the evil attackers of American habeus Corpus and/or defend the most left-leaning POTUS as being concerned with American rights.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Let's also talk about the facts that these types of violent actions tend to evolve from leftist organizations, and the Left was already trying to paint this incident as a right wing extremist plot. Laughable at best, considering this administrations laughable attempt to paint the Tea Party as extreme right wing violent nutjobs. It is also not inconceivable that the Clintons and other leftists Marxist types were involved in setting up the 9-11 job and making the Bush admin appear solely culpable, while the Democrats STILL voted for the PATRIOT Act at first, and then later pretended they cared about individual rights.
I've even seen people on these boards try to paint private mercenary firms as the evil guys. Wouldn't that then make POTUS appear ever so innocent?

Huh? And that relates to the topic how? I would address this if it had any relevance to the topic, not just partisan BS. The FACT remains that it is Republican members pushing for this. FOX ITSELF said it. The rest of your posts don't even require attention imo.

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Let's also talk about the facts that these types of violent actions tend to evolve from leftist organizations, and the Left was already trying to paint this incident as a right wing extremist plot. Laughable at best, considering this administrations laughable attempt to paint the Tea Party as extreme right wing violent nutjobs. It is also not inconceivable that the Clintons and other leftists Marxist types were involved in setting up the 9-11 job and making the Bush admin appear solely culpable, while the Democrats STILL voted for the PATRIOT Act at first, and then later pretended they cared about individual rights.
I've even seen people on these boards try to paint private mercenary firms as the evil guys. Wouldn't that then make POTUS appear ever so innocent?

Huh? And that relates to the topic how? I would address this if it had any relevance to the topic, not just partisan BS. The FACT remains that it is Republican members pushing for this. FOX ITSELF said it. The rest of your posts don't even require attention imo.

It's not like they are sending him to Gitmo. I have read the Fox news article and heard discussions on Fox news. The "Enemy Combatant' mode gives them a 48 hour window to question him before reading his Miranda rights. Your post made me think you were highlighting the Republican lawmaker aspect of it.
Then there's this

President Obama in the immediate aftermath of the bombings declared them an “act of terrorism.”

and this

"We remain under threat from radical Islam and we hope the Obama administration will seriously consider the enemy combatant option,” the Republican lawmakers said. “We are encouraged our high value detainee interrogation team is now involved … .A decision to not read Miranda rights to the suspect was sound and in our national security interests.”

www.foxnews.com...

This does not make me believe that POTUS is any more worried about the rights of a US citizen then a Republican Senator. But he's darn good at pretending.

I'm just not convinced this POTUS is interested in preserving the rights of US Citizens is all, and until it came out these two guys were of Chechen origin, the liberal media was only too happy to paint this a right leaning "terrorist" activity. But whoops, they turned out to be Chechen. What is the difference between Awlaki and 19 year old Chechen guy? Awlaki was born in the US, and Chechen guy was naturalized 7 months prior to this event.

Both of these seemed to not have the Patriotic sense of duty to their country of naturalization. And neither of them were "right-leaning".

I honestly don't think POTUS has any concern for US Security either and question his loyalty.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
It's not like they are sending him to Gitmo. I have read the Fox news article and heard discussions on Fox news. The "Enemy Combatant' mode gives them a 48 hour window to question him before reading his Miranda rights. Your post made me think you were highlighting the Republican lawmaker aspect of it.
Then there's this

President Obama in the immediate aftermath of the bombings declared them an “act of terrorism.”

and this

"We remain under threat from radical Islam and we hope the Obama administration will seriously consider the enemy combatant option,” the Republican lawmakers said. “We are encouraged our high value detainee interrogation team is now involved … .A decision to not read Miranda rights to the suspect was sound and in our national security interests.”

www.foxnews.com...

This does not make me believe that POTUS is any more worried about the rights of a US citizen then a Republican Senator. But he's darn good at pretending.

Reread the bold. You just made my point on who was the impetus in this initiative and further debasement of the Constitution. Sorry man, your words. No spinning this puppy.

They can call for it all they like. If they chose this route, then it would only support the Conspiracy theorists IMO.

This guy needs good old fashion U.S justice. If he's found guilty then he deserves to fry, hang, receive a lethal injection or whatever. The people need to see justice taking place, not some secret court handing out justice.

I really hope it will not go down this route!!

reply to post by intrepid

Reread the bold. You just made my point on who was the impetus in this initiative and further debasement of the Constitution. Sorry man, your words. No spinning this puppy.

Again, where is the indication that he is being sent to Gitmo without representation? They are just using the 48 hour window to get answers. I just showed that they can do it legally. Obama himself declared this an act of terrorism before we even knew who it was.
Obama has shown he is willing to kill citizens with drones. I bet he was all ready to treat this guy as an "enemy combatant" when Chris Matthews painted this as a right wing terrorist attack.

Again, why was it ok to kill Awlaki with a drone, but this guy can't be questioned without his Miranda rights.....

The older brother was born in Russia and the younger one in Kyrgyzstan. Dad is in Russia.

Kid like's Jay Z ...didn't that guy just go to Cuba? This whole thing stinks of foreign influence.

Speaking of the definitions of "enemy combatant" and how the Executive branch can deal with them....

In 2004, the Supreme Court issued two key rulings concerning the Executive’s authority to detain
persons in the “war on terror.” In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 3 a majority of the Court found that the 2001
AUMF permitted the preventive detention of enemy combatants captured during hostilities in
Afghanistan, including those who were U.S. citizens. A divided Court found that persons deemed
“enemy combatants” have the right to challenge their detention before a judge or other “neutral
decision-maker.” The Hamdi case concerned the rights of a U.S. citizen detained as an enemy
combatant, and the Court did not decide the extent to which this right also applied to noncitizens
held at Guantanamo and elsewhere. However, on the same day that Hamdi was decided, the Court
issued an opinion in the case of Rasul v. Bush,4 holding that the federal habeas corpus statute, 28
U.S.C. § 2241, provided federal courts with jurisdiction to consider habeas corpus petitions by or
on behalf of persons detained at Guantanamo.

ok so that was a Supreme Court ruling. then comes the Obama admin wanting to redefine the term "enemy combatant"

In March 2009, the Obama Administration announced a new definitional standard for the
government’s authority to detain terrorist suspects, which no longer employs the phrase “enemy
combatant” to refer to persons who may be properly detained,15 although the new standard is
largely similar in scope to the “enemy combatant” standard used earlier. The Obama
Administration standard would permit the detention of members of the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and
associated forces, along with persons who provide “substantial support” (rather than merely
“support”) to such groups, regardless of whether these individuals were captured away from the
battlefield in Afghanistan.16 The Obama Administration indicated that this definitional standard
does “not rely on the President’s authority as Commander-in-Chief independent of Congress’s
specific authorization.”17

So the administration can still hold people in detention without calling it "enemy combatant".


www.fas.org...

reply to post by JohnPhoenix

I would think for them to try him as an Enemy Combatant they would have to KNOW,

Exactly. To deny those rights is to assume guilt before there is any trial at all. period.

One more time... yeah, this kid may be guilty and deserve whatever end is appropriate for such a heinous act. But short of an honest and open trial, the verdict becomes lost and the questioning of the procedures insulting to everything we once stood for as a nation.

We either rise above our enemies and our worst tendencies or we become them... and those horrors they claim as their own.

In response to Supreme Court decisions in 2004 related to “enemy combatants,” the Pentagon

established procedures for Combatant Status Review Tribunals (CSRTs), based on the procedures
the Army uses to determine POW status during traditional wars.37 Detainees who are determined
not to be enemy combatants are to be transferred to their country of citizenship or otherwise dealt
with “consistent with domestic and international obligations and U.S. foreign policy.”

www.fas.org...

Since the Chechen guy now has US citizenship there is no where to extradite him to.

One does have to wonder why a person who sought US citizenship would immediately turn around and do an act of terrorism in his new country of choice. This makes me think that either he was turned immediately after the naturalization or his naturalization was sought as a means to protect him in the event of getting caught.

In a regular trial, the Government would bear the burden of proof that he indeed was guilty of any crimes accused.

If they change his status, he won't be tried in front of a jury of the people, and less proof is needed for a conviction.

ETA: Massachusetts dosen't have the death penalty. Now, there are Federal death penalty laws...

Originally posted by intrepid

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus

Originally posted by intrepid
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.

Anything to keep POTUS' hands clean?

No, anything to keep the facts straight. Something wrong with facts?

It is when the facts are showing that it isn't the progressives that are taking away a persons rights. But it is no surprise to see two of the usual anti American crowd Graham and McCain are in on this.

(Reply from thread with similar title)

Regardless of how some may feel about this situation, the suspect was smart enough to get his citizenship beforehand, and that allows him the same rights as every other US citizen whether people like it or not. If they had linked him directly to a terror group or terrorist organization, then I think they could try him as an enemy combatant, but until then he is just another psycho in a long list of psychotic killers.

Lets not blur the line between citizen and terrorist anymore than it already has been.