Some are pushing for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be tried as an “enemy combatant,” i.e. no Miranda rights, etc.
Good idea or no?
Better question is why?
He is a citizen. If you start second-guessing his condition, what about the thousands of folks that have become citizens and would like nothing better than to stay in this country?
Among other reasons, the GOP thinks he may have valuable intelligence on other terrorist activity.
Here’s the statement from Graham, McCain, and Ayotte.
I think it’s rubbish. Try the criminal little shit as a U.S. citizen.
On what basis could the government deny him his constitutional rights? At least with the Guantanamo detainees the government can make a semi-plausible argument that they don’t have rights under the US Constitution, being non-US-citizens captured outside the US. But this guy is a US citizen arrested in the US; the government can’t just ignore the Constitution because it’s convenient.
Read the links I provided for the explanation and justification. My feeling is that it’s pretty unlikely he will be tried as anything other than a U.S. citizen. It would be a very bad thing if McCain et al. get their way on this.
He should be given a scrupulously fair trial as an American citizen.
Then he should be put in prison for the rest of his life.
That is exactly the outcome I am expecting.
The investigation into his connections is just starting. If it is shown he has connections to a known terror group then treat him as an enemy combatant.
If he is connected to organized terror groups then his citizenship could be stripped on the grounds of material misrepresentation during the application process.
Relevant question from Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, N-400 Application for Naturalization
Agreed, although he will probably be tried under Federal statutes relating to terrorism and stands a good chance of getting the needle, I would be OK with him spending the remainder of his life in ADX Florence.
Did you read the links? From your first link, Graham clearly states the trial should be a civilian one:
From your second cite, it appears that the others do ,too:
He came to the US when he was nine years old. I seriously doubt he was associated with terror groups at that time (or now, for that matter.)
This is just the latest fake outrage so Republicans can bitch about Obama again. Expect it to be the focus of talk radio and Fox News for weeks.
Rendition, it’s the new Benghazi.
And that is a rather inaccurate summary. The older brother (who was recently in Russia, near Chechnya) might very well have been connected to Chechen terrorist organizations, and that would like the younger brother, too, as his [supposed] accomplice.
Now, I’m not saying we know they were, but it’s very reasonable to assume that they might have been.
Also, just to be clear, the OP is inaccurate. None of the senators cited is suggesting that he be tried as an enemy combatant.
I doubt he could have had an application for naturalization pending since age nine. The question is whether he had such associations at the time he filed the N-400 application for naturalization. If so, and presuming he lied on that question, then his citizenship is subject to being revoked.
Further, if he joined such a group within 5 years after naturalization he is also subject to having his citizenship stripped.
:rolleyes:
Fine, held and questioned as an enemy combatant (potentially indefinitely) without receiving his Miranda rights and with anything he says under those circumstances being admissible in the Court of Law.
Out of curiosity, Is there precedence for someone being held and interrogated (“enhanced” or otherwise) as an enemy noncombatant then being turned over to civilian court?
I’d like to point out that the poll question uses the word “treated.” Which is accurate.
That’s a funny way of thanking me for correcting your errors. I’m always amazed how certain people here can’t simply say they made a mistake. This is not some little nit picky thing, amigo. There is a world of difference between what was IN YOUR OWN CITES and what you are claiming.
Even now you are just making shit up. I already quoted FROM YOUR OWN CITES THAT YOU TOLD OTHER PEOPLE TO READ that they are talking about a 30-day period.
Get the facts right next time, and you won’t need toact all upset when someone corrects you.
That’s a funny way of failing to read the poll question.
ETA: As for the 30-day thing, that’s a suggestion. Enemy combatant status has no official legal duration or limit, whatever they suggest. I for one don’t believe that, if he were held and questioned as a enemy combatant, it would only last for 30 days.
Incidentally, the :rolleyes: was for your tone. Which does not deserve a thank you.
True, your poll question only asked if Tsarnaev should be treated as an enemy combatant or not but the poll options were for how he should be tried in court.