Untrue. Only the civilian option mentions trial, which I stand behind.
Civilian trial under the U.S. constitution does not allow for a potentially indefinite detention and interrogation devoid of Constitutional rights, particularly the 5th Amendment. If he goes through such a process, and is for any period of time denied his rights under the U.S. constitution, the constitutional process due a citizen at trial is abrogated.
The entire existence of the “enemy combatant” status is just a thorn in the side of the United States now. Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab is in prison. Faisal Shahzad is in prison. They were tried in civilian courts and it worked better for the United States. They’re guilty of crimes and guilty criminals go to prison because that’s just how the law works. The “enemy combatants” in Guantanamo have no clear path to anything other than legal headaches for everyone involved. We don’t even know where to keep “enemy combatants” let alone how to deal with them other than by forgetting they exist.
Cite?
Also, you might be wise to remember the first rule of holes.
You know I was just at a conference on Anti Terrorism laws this past week. We had a judge from England and Wales and he spoke how in the UK, they have treated terrorism as a law enforcement issue and one of the reasons was to deny any glorification to the perpetrator. Treat him as any other criminal don’t make him special.
Exactly. Give him the benefit of all the rights afforded to any other criminal defendant, including a fair trial in open court. If he is convicted, impose an appropriate sentence under the law.
This isn’t Great Debates. Respond to the poll or not, as you wish.
I did. I’m 100% in agreement with you. But I don’t like it even when someone who is “on my side” makes stuff up to justify the position. There is no need to. And by making stuff up, you are potentially influencing the way people vote by giving out false information. If all you want is a poll, then just ask the question and stop making things up.
Do you know what happened in Benghazi? If not, why not?
This is a poll, involving opinions. I provided my opinion. My opinion admittedly also influenced the wording of the poll. Whatever, it isn’t scientific. Your opinion may be different. Fine.
I also provided citations to encourage people to read and think for themselves. They may come to different conclusions about the situation. Also fine. They can then protest that my poll choices are inaccurate according to their own interpretation, also fine. But no, I’m not going to thank your smug attitude.
I will state also that I am not a lawyer, nor a constitutional scholar. Merely a concerned citizen. Placing a U.S. citizen, who committed a crime in the U.S. and who was not apparently part of a foreign army or militia, in “enemy combatant” status is an abrogation of that citizen’s civil rights. Obviously, some people believe that there is constitutional justification for a rather liberal interpretation of the “public safety” part of the Fifth Amendment, thereby justifying this abrogation. My opinion is that it’s crap to then pretend that those circumstances don’t make a mockery of a civilian trial as it is commonly understood, even if the criminal is then returned to a “normal” criminal proceedings. I therefore don’t think it’s unreasonable to use “civilian trial” as a shorthand to mean no designation (even temporary) as “enemy combatant.”
Also “enemy combatant” status does not legally have some maximum duration. Yes, the GOP suggested 30 days, as anyone could read. I for one however do not believe for a second that if this came to pass it would end up being only 30 days for Mr. Tsarnaev. Current “enemy combatants” can and usually do remain in that status indefinitely. McCain et al. and their statement I see as being disingenuous on that point.
Not being read his “Miranda rights” only means that whatever Dzhokhar Tsarnaev says BEFORE he is read his Miranda rights “probably” (the court may decide whether it is or isn’t) isn’t admissable in court. However, there is an eyewitness who saw him drop the bomb-laden backpack by an 8 year old child. There is video evidence that the brothers were carrying the backpacks that contained the bombs. The brothers voluntarily admitted to the driver they hijacked that they were the monsters who bombed the Boston Marthon.
I don’t think it will be difficult to convince a jury that these two terrorists are responsible for the deaths of 3 people and the injury and maiming of 183 others, regardless of their being read their Miranda Rights.
By the way, poll choices can only be 100 characters or less. My original poll choices were more specific. Can we please take it as read that no. 2 is “…civilian trial, without any time being held and interrogated as an enemy combatant”?
That’s what I thought it meant when I chose it as my vote. The Constitution doesn’t cease to guarantee our rights when it is convenient and/or politically expedient to do so.
The Miranda issue is currently moot, as the defendant is unable to speak. Still, if and when he recovers enough for interrogation, he should be read his rights. If he chooses to waive them, fine. Proceed with questioning. If he chooses to remain silent other than requesting access to counsel, law enforcement should back off and give him a lawyer.
Obviously, that lawyer will advise him to remain silent, at least until a plea agreement is in place. If the prosecution won’t offer an acceptable plea, then he never talks. For this case, at the federal level, an acceptable plea is probably life without parole.
And if he became a citizen before joining a terrorist group? Besides, no one knows if he did belong to a terrorist group, or was just helping his brother.
What if he was born in the US? If he is a citizen, should be tried as one.
Criminal prosecution under US criminal law from day zero. Those senators are just reaching for an excuse to slam the other side over nothing.
<nitpick>
I think you meant responsible for the deaths of 4 people. Three by bombing. One by shooting the MIT police officer. That officer was every bit as much a victim as the others.
</nitpick>
He was naturalized as a US citizen on Sept 11, 2012. If he joined a terrorist organization after that time he is subject to “denaturaliztion” (removal of his citizenship) in accordance with relevant U.S. law.
U.S. law does not provide for the option of involuntary removal of a natural born citizens’ citizenship.
Why do we think that our laws and law enforcement are inadequate to handle this situation? Really, we have spent multiple centuries developing our laws and our law enforcement - did we mess it up so completely that we can’t handle this? We feel we have to invent new categories and new punishments? What a bunch of bullshit. It’s just lynch mob mentality.
I quite agree.
I also wonder whether politicians would be calling for “enemy combatant” status if Dzokhar weren’t Muslim, but say, something Christian-ish. As far as I know, there is still no evidence tying him to any terrorist organization. Maybe evidence in that regard will appear. But it seems wrong to me still to go with the GOP recommendation.
Could someone explain to me the distinction between being declared an enemy combatant and not being read one’s Miranda rights? The two get conflated all the time (including by Lindsay Graham, and in this thread), but they’re not the same. People get questioned without being read their Miranda rights all the time, and there’s no need to declare them an enemy combatant to do so. What would declaring someone an enemy combatant do over and above not reading them their Miranda rights?
A few points worth making:
Being Mirandized is not some magical act that grants you rights. Miranda readings just inform you of rights you already have.
Being questioned sans Miranda is not inherently unconstitutional (Chavez v. Martinez, 2003).
The public safety exception is not about how long you can wait to read Miranda rights. It’s about circumstances under which pre-Miranda statements can be admissible in court.
I think it’s about who does the questioning, and how long he can be held without being given a lawyer. If EC, then it’s the military (and possibly CIA) that questions him. If not, it’s the FBI.