He is, by definition, an enemy combatant. Why will the administration not charge him as such?

The surviving brother in the Boston attacks has been formally charged, but not as an enemy combatant, Why? Because in 2009 President Obama had Eric Holder issue a statement that the term enemy combatant would be abandoned although the laws to protect us, not the terrorist, had been passed during the Bush administration after 9/11. This helped us to capture OBL and others. So, since they do not use it, they cannot enforce the laws that were passed, again, the protect the US and not the terrorist.

Right now, we all know that there was a 'cell' in Boston and in other cities. The FBI let that information out. We have seen the links from the bombers and to AQ in Europe. We have seen and read who the older brother went to and where he was radicalized. So, since they were sympathetic to the cause and based on that brought willful harm to the citizens of the US, that means it fits the descriptions that the Obama admin agreed with in 2008 .

‘Enemy combatant’ shall mean an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Qaeda forces, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners. This includes any person who has committed belligerent act or has directly supported hostilities in aid of enemy combat forces.”

It was not just the bombing. They shot an officer in cold blood dead. They then car jacked another victim and had a 'gun battle' in the streets of Boston with IED's. What else do we need? Multiple attacks on the US homeland against LEOS in the name of Allah and he is NOT an enemy combatant.

Here is where we start to split hairs though...is he a lawful or unlawful enemy combatant? According to the Military commissions Act he is a unlawful enemy combatant. So, again, why is he not charged as such.

They called Ft Hood workplace violence. The president has yet to declare this an act of Islamic terrorism,,,and it is. What has happened to justice for those who are killed in these attacks...what rights do they still have. From what I read, less than the ones who killed them to make sure they are prosecuted.

reply to post by esdad71


One of the problems with counter terrorism is the conflict between the law enforcement model and the military model of counterterrorism. If you take the military model and argue that it is a military problem then yes he is a enemy combatant…. Kind of, technically to be a enemy combatant you have to meet the criteria under the Geneva convention at least until bush started messing around with the word of the law.

If you take the law enforcement model then he should be charged and tried like anyone else under relevant legislation. This is actually in my view the way it should always be a law enforcement matter rather than a military one particularly in cases of domestic terrorism, that is to say a attack on American soil.

Under the definition you provided it talks about supporting or active members of Al-Qa’ida or the Taliban there is little evidence to suggest that this guy what working with either directly, he might have been influenced but he’s not a “core member”.

I would actually argue that there is a case to be made of him not even being a terrorist, under American law to be a terrorist the acts have to be politically motivated. It could be the case, all be it very unlikely, that reasoning behind these attacks was just to blow some people up other than to make a political point.

But also OP, would you not rather he was tired in a public court rather than in a secret military tribunal?

reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin


Look up the NDAA 2012, as that is where the wording is from.

Did anyone think that they would start to try american citizens under military court without popular opinion? Of course not.

Although after Boston, now they've got everyone begging for him to be tried as an enemy combatant.

This is the agenda. It is working.

Like it or not they were both US citizens. Declaring a US citizen an 'enemy combatant' would set a very dangerous precedent don't you think? Since the charges laid against him will give him life in prison or possibly the death sentence. Would labeling him some term made up by the Bush administration really do any good anyway?

reply to post by fenceSitter


Under the Act, even a US citizen can be labelled as such. Just an FYI. I think they are simply loathe to do it, as it will be easier (legally) to go the Fed route.

Next thing you know cops would be putting "domestic abuse" calls under enemy combatant claims.

As well as a bunch of undesirable "crimes".

American Justice... under regular law this Boston Boomber faces the death penalty. Why is that not good enough?

The problem is that in the US is we 'pass' laws that revise known laws to fit the situation and interpret them based on the current administration. This is why SCJ nominations are so important. That is where it will end up and you want 'friends' there who have the same point of view.

Case in point. Judge Sotamayor ruled once and it when to the Supreme court. It was overturned based on the decision she made, which was incorrect and unlawful. She now sits on the Supreme Court. That would be like knowing someone was a pedophile and letting them work at a preschool. There is something telling us they are not right to be there but we put them there anyways.

He is an unlawful enemy combatant and should be tried as such. Go the Federal route as it is also a Federal Crime. He needs the death penalty. He knows what he did. Affiliation or not, he should pay his price for his views.

I would think the "taking away our rights!" crew would be happy about this. Charging American citizens in this fashion would change everything. Anyone who disagrees with their government or country could be subject.

Originally posted by esdad71
The surviving brother in the Boston attacks has been formally charged, but not as an enemy combatant, Why?

They called Ft Hood workplace violence. The president has yet to declare this an act of Islamic terrorism,,,and it is. What has happened to justice for those who are killed in these attacks...what rights do they still have. From what I read, less than the ones who killed them to make sure they are prosecuted.

edit on 23-4-2013 by esdad71 because: (no reason given)

After pouring over every post in the MANY Boston threads that have appeared here and elsewhere in the aftermath of another horrible act of violence, I must say that I have yet to see any evidence linking Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to any "terror cell" domestic or other wise. I'm not saying its not there and it is possible the evidence is there, I have yet to see it. His older brother however IMO seems to be a different story altogether. Unless we consider the deeds and associates of our siblings to be deeds and associations of our own.

This is without a doubt a horrible act of violence and innocent people have been killed to make a point, what that point is I have yet to know specifically. To compare the rights of those killed and injured to the rights of individuals or the individual who committed these acts is inappropriate here, IMO. Bypassing the process of the justice system is precisely what "terrorists" are doing by sentencing innocent people to death without any evidence that they, the victims, themselves are guilty. Is this what we want here ? Even rapists are allowed the benefits of due process and the prosecutors and victims are expected to prove, beyond doubt, that they are guilty of the crime for which they are being accused of.

Penny

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by fenceSitter

 

Under the Act, even a US citizen can be labelled as such. Just an FYI. I think they are simply loathe to do it, as it will be easier (legally) to go the Fed route.

That part of the NDAA cannot be applied to US citizens. A court challenge made sure of that when they won.

Secondly, the bombers are US citizens.. The Military has no jurisdiction because of that.

The same thing occurred with Jose Padilla (guy from Chicago, if i remeber right,) He was supposedly the 20th hijacker from 911. The military origionally had jurisdiction until a federal judge said no. A US citizen who is arrested in this country cannot be tried under military law.

reply to post by esdad71

He is an unlawful enemy combatant and should be tried as such. Go the Federal route as it is also a Federal Crime. He needs the death penalty. He knows what he did. Affiliation or not, he should pay his price for his views.

Oh, I have no doubt he'll be locked up for the rest of his days...if not the death penalty. I'm actually much more sure he'll eventually be executed...just as others have, who faced the same charges.

I am really distrustful of anyone who believes that these guys shouldn't be tried through the criminal justice system. The surviving bomber is a US citizen accused of a crime in the US. That there is even a debate about how he should be handled is testimony to how far we have fallen as a nation from our founding principles.

Using the criminal justice system to convict and punish the bomber is the right thing to do.

There are roles for both law enforcement and military in the fight against terror. Military action should only be used against those outside the reach of law enforcement.

reply to post by Xcathdra

The military origionally had jurisdiction until a federal judge said no. A US citizen who is arrested in this country cannot be tried under military law.

There is precedence, yes, but it is still part of the original act. This precedent though, is exactly why they are going the Fed route, vs. trying to use the enemy combatant angle. That part of the Act has been judged to be unconstitutional, but it is still on the books.

Originally posted by Gazrok
Under the Act, even a US citizen can be labelled as such. Just an FYI. I think they are simply loathe to do it, as it will be easier (legally) to go the Fed route.

This is a very slippery slope in we can almost generalize any illegal action as "enemy combatant", we can even go down the path that a person of interest that is also an American can be labeled an enemy combatant.

Way too much power that usurps the constitution quite easily.

It is not just enemy combatant, it is whether they are unlawful or lawful. That is the definition now. The main law goes back to WW2.

He is a US citizen. I'm going to have to go with the principle that, as a citizen, he be afforded all of the rights and due process of any citizen as much as I personally would like to see him strung up by his testicles.

Originally posted by esdad71
The problem is that in the US is we 'pass' laws that revise known laws to fit the situation and interpret them based on the current administration. This is why SCJ nominations are so important. That is where it will end up and you want 'friends' there who have the same point of view.

Case in point. Judge Sotamayor ruled once and it when to the Supreme court. It was overturned based on the decision she made, which was incorrect and unlawful. She now sits on the Supreme Court. That would be like knowing someone was a pedophile and letting them work at a preschool. There is something telling us they are not right to be there but we put them there anyways.

He is an unlawful enemy combatant and should be tried as such. Go the Federal route as it is also a Federal Crime. He needs the death penalty. He knows what he did. Affiliation or not, he should pay his price for his views.

O K, and what about some "view" of yours which someone in high places may not agree with? Should you have to "pay" some price for having them.
The main problem here is that pesky old "U S Constitution" which so many people like to drag out to justify the things they like but fail to mention when things are not going their way.
As to the rulings of "any" person sitting in judgement of a court case. They make their decissions based upon the testamony and arguments which are presented by those lawers from each side. If one side has a more knowledgable lawyer than the other, their views could sway a judge in their favor.
I hope this attempt to spead a little enlightment has helped.

This will be used for CISPA , the immigation bill and also the Internet Tax bill which is really just another way to restrict intrastate commerce and control such commerce (guns again?) is what I fear. The faults of the DHS, since this guy was pinged six months ago when he went to Russia. Yes, Janet from another planet said it in a hearing. They were aware of this guy. They are lying way too much and cannot keep any of the stories straight.

The immigration bill will pass when the link the Texas explosion to rogue elements that crossed the border. Look. that plant did not house the explosive that the MSM is describing. Anhydrous ammonia will not just explode. It needs a catalyst. Look at where the blast started it is on a rail line. So, roll it on in, loaded with nitrate and kaboom. There is your catalyst. Just saying...

reply to post by esdad71


He is a citizen of the United States and as such he has rights just like every other citizen. What you are suggesting is reckless, dangerous, and shows just how ignorant of the legal system you are or worse yet deliberately willing to violate a citizen's rights regardless of the the consequences. We cannot arbitrarily violate long standing principles because we want to secure a conviction. You and many others who feel like you do really need to rethink your position on this matter because once a legal abuse becomes commonplace, no matter the justification or reason to commit the abuse, there is no going back;it will become easier and easier to violate everyone's rights and the country you profess to love will be destroyed from the inside.