Should the Boston bomber be treated as an enemy combatant?

[Blarg]

I see where you missed on the first page that I stated that the laws of this nation be applied to the case rather than a rush to judgment without facts.

 

I agree. That's why it's so frustrating to see people suggest not allowing due process for someone arrested on US soil.

[Lifetime]

I agree. That's why it's so frustrating to see people suggest not allowing due process for someone arrested on US soil.

So, if an enemy operative or terrorist operative commits his crimes/atrocities against the US on US soil they should be treated differently than if they do so out of country? 

[red321]

You don't have to Mirandize a subject to talk to them, or question them. If you want to use information from the discussion in court, than you have to...but they could have questioned him all day long. They have plenty of other evidence to convict him on. 

[Lifetime]

You do if you place them under arrest

[Socaliente]

You DO NOT need to be read your Miranda Warning Rights when you are arrested. Miranda requires 3 elements present. Questioning while in Custody by the Government. Obviously all 3 have happened with the bomber. But all that means is any statements made by him to questions about the incident(s) will be thown out in court. But the feds/police have enough evidence to convict him without his statements so they dont care, nor should they. They felt the intell outweighed any admission of guilt.    

[LBHalos17]

What if he and his brother were the terrorist organization? How big does the organization have to be for it to count? Is there a list of acceptable terrorist organizations?

The State Department updates a list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations.  Ties to these FTO's changes how they are dealt with.  You should check it out as there are links/info on what the Patriot Act actually is in place for.

[HaloMagic]

So those are the only terrorist organizations that matter?

[HaloMagic]

So, if an enemy operative or terrorist operative commits his crimes/atrocities against the US on US soil they should be treated differently than if they do so out of country?

No. We should always give a public trial to anyone apprehended and accused of a crime against the country.

[Count Orlok]

No. Same goes for the older brother in the hypothetical situation someone asked. Treat them like suspected criminals and once he is convicted treat him like a convicted criminal. 

[Lifetime]

No. We should always give a public trial to anyone apprehended and accused of a crime against the country.

So the "apprehended on US soil"  part? 

[HaloMagic]

I believe we "should" treat everyone accused of a crime against the US the same. I believe we are "required" to treat people apprehended on US soil the same as we treat citizens.

[Lifetime]

How is the requirement different? Is there a legal differentiation? 

[HaloMagic]

Between should and required? Yeah, I should make my bed after I get up. I'm required to maintain my yard per my HOA. Pretty simple stuff.

[Broad Street]

I'm going to be hated for this, I know I am... but in my honest opinion, yes. They both should be considered enemy combatants. They waged a small war on US soil. You're all saying that because the younger brother was a US citizen, he shouldn't be treated like the terrorist he is? In the end it doesn't really matter, he's going to be put to death anyways, but what's the difference between an Al-Qaeda member in Afghanistan, and a domestic terrorist. Maybe they should have their own grouping.

 

Commence the hate.

[HaloMagic]

What's the difference between these two guys and James Holmes?

[Broad Street]

What's the difference between these two guys and James Holmes?

James Holmes didn't go train overseas to be a terrorist. He just walked into a theatre and started shooting blindly. REGARDLESS, he should be treated as an enemy combatant too (in my opinion, probably no one else's). Anyone who carries out mass casualty attacks on the citizens of the United States of America, should be treated as an enemy of the state.

[arch stanton]

I'm going to be hated for this, I know I am... but in my honest opinion, yes. They both should be considered enemy combatants. They waged a small war on US soil. You're all saying that because the younger brother was a US citizen, he shouldn't be treated like the terrorist he is? In the end it doesn't really matter, he's going to be put to death anyways, but what's the difference between an Al-Qaeda member in Afghanistan, and a domestic terrorist. Maybe they should have their own grouping.

 

Commence the hate.

No hate but when we keep legitimizing what they do and giving it the status of war then they become legitimate warriors and heroes instead of common murderers and child killers. If our long established laws are that easily manipulated then our government becomes no more legitimate than those of Assad or Kim. 

[Vegas Halo Fan]

I think due process is the main thing

 

Historically, "enemy combatant" was any member of the military of a country we were at war against. They were tried in military courts and did not have access to the US Federal Court System. After 9/11 the Bush II Administration added members of terrorist organizations to the list.

[Broad Street]

No hate but when we keep legitimizing what they do and giving it the status of war then they become legitimate warriors and heroes instead of common murderers and child killers. If our long established laws are that easily manipulated then our government becomes no more legitimate than those of Assad or Kim.

They're already considered legitimate warriors and heroes to their own kind, what difference does it really make to Americans? They'll still be considered murderers and child killers no matter how we try them.

[LBHalos17]

Seriously, just read up on it; the Patriot Act and FTO's, not you HOA's

[HaloMagic]

I've read the Patriot Act and I've tried to keep up with all the related follow-up legislation. And I'm well aware of FTOs. The government has been labeling FTOs for decades. I disagree that the way we treat the accused needs to be different simply because of their supposed connections and under my interpretation of the Constitution I don't believe our government is allowed to treat them so drastically different, provided they are arrested on US soil.

[Lifetime]

Can you show me where in the Constitution you get this US soil impression from? 

[Broad Street]

I've read the Patriot Act and I've tried to keep up with all the related follow-up legislation. And I'm well aware of FTOs. The government has been labeling FTOs for decades. I disagree that the way we treat the accused needs to be different simply because of their supposed connections and under my interpretation of the Constitution I don't believe our government is allowed to treat them so drastically different, provided they are arrested on US soil.

 

So if somehow, we caught the guys who did 9/11, as long as we arrested them on US soil we shouldn't treat them differently? A terrorist is a terrorist. Doesn't matter where you arrest them, they're enemy combatants waging a war against humanity.

[HaloMagic]

Anyone that murders waged a war against humanity. I feel our domestic legal system is more the acceptable to deal with terrorists. We have anti-terrorism laws on the books with penalties for breaking them. We should be using that system to prosecute, not one that ignores basic rights.

[Rico]

I'm going to say yes.

 

Due process is too slow.  Even if there is a trial and found guilty there will be years of appeals and it will drag on for decades.  There needs to be a way to expedite the whole process in the extreme cases of this bomber and James Holmes.  There is overwhelming evidence against this guys, lets put a bullet in their brain.

 

Do you guys know Jared Loughner struck a deal for life imprisonment to avoid the death penalty?  Dude kills 6 people, shoots a congresswoman in the head, and will probably outlive 80% of the posters on this forum.  That dude needs a bullet in his brain as well.