Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

Jodie said:
Well I found these stats. It looks like the UK has a much higher rate than the US:
Click to expand...
We've had decades of Irish terrorism, so we're used to it. When we did the things you've advocated (internment without trial, and so on) the problems at the very least didn't get better. I would think that the reasons for this are fairly obvious, but apparently they aren't.
 
There are probably many other factors that affect rates of terrorism such as infrastructure, ability to have security, ability to travel, etc....It probably doesn't get better because most terrorists are willing to die for the cause. Evidently being raised here doesn't make much difference in the outlook or make one question why the cause is just to carry out the act. So what did the US do to these children that grew up here that resulted in this?
 
Jodie said:
There are probably many other factors that affect rates of terrorism such as infrastructure, ability to have security, ability to travel, etc....It probably doesn't get better because most terrorists are willing to die for the cause. Evidently being raised here doesn't make much difference in the outlook or make one question why the cause is just to carry out the act. So what did the US do to these children that grew up here that resulted in this?
Click to expand...
Are most terrorists willing to die for their cause? I realize that some Islamic fundamentalist terrorists certainly are, and I understand they may have got that idea from Tamil Tigers, but the IRA generally weren't killing themselves, and I've never heard that, for example, the RAF or the Red Brigades were. I think the problem is that your model of terrorism is based entirely on Islamic terrorism of the last couple of decades.

We can't speculate sensibly on the motive in this case, as one has not been given, and no serious evidence provided in that regard. I can obviously make suggestions as to what might motivate terrorists at the moment, and not the least of those would be things like Guantanamo.
 
Jodie said:
There is nothing "mob rule" about anything I suggested.
Click to expand...

Saying that we should forego his rights to a fair trial, to not incriminate himself, to question his accusers, etc. may as well be mob rule.

Jodie said:
I certainly don't think we are hearing everything as far as what evidence they have but obviously there is no question regarding his guilt.
Click to expand...

Yes, on the internet and court of public opinion, he's guilty. However, legally and ethically, he's innocent until proven guilty.

Jodie said:
If we had something more stringent in place it might stop some of these attacks. Why do you think they keep happening?
Click to expand...

Keep happening? WTF are you on about? We're a very safe country when it comes to terrorism, relatively speaking. We're not immune to it obviously, but no country is, except for maybe Switzerland, and Antarctica. Look at many other countries. Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, etc. etc. etc. We've had two, count them TWO terrorist attacks from outside the country. Well, one. 9/11. This one seems to have been influenced by outside sources, but it was a US Citizen. They keep happening because people are *********** crazy.

Jodie said:
Because they are taking advantage of legal loop holes in our judicial system.
Click to expand...

And which loop hole is that? You mean that we have to convict them first before putting them in prison? That's not a loophole, that's there by design. I'm kinda glad it is.

So, which loop hole?

Jodie said:
If they pulled the same stunt in their home country there would be a very swift outcome.
Click to expand...

No doubt, but we're not Russia, or any other country. We are Americans and we abide by our rules that we set out many years ago, and will continue to do so until the cows come home. But, if you really want to get technical, the US is his home country.
 
SezMe said:
It will mean something to me. It will mean that we're still trying as a country to uphold our cherished ideals. If that is Pollyandish, then so be it. I sincerely hope most of my fellow citizens share my view.
Click to expand...

I'll drink to that sir! I agree 110%!! I don't care who it is, they deserve their day in court, no matter how disgusting and vile we think they are.
 
Jodie said:
If they pulled the same stunt in their home country there would be a very swift outcome.
Click to expand...

So is your premise here that we should strive to emulate bad criminal justice systems in other countries? I assume not, so I have no idea what you mean by this comment. Does the fact that another country would not adhere to the rules of due process justify us abandoning our commitment to the rule of law?
 
Jodie said:
So it doesn't matter what kind of judiciary system you have based onlooking at this.
Click to expand...
Exactly. Which knocks the legs out from under your "swift and terrible vengance" theory of terrorism prevention.

I would think that the level of terrorism faced by the USA is more due to our aggressive foreign policy based on military dominance rather than any nuance in our system of jurisprudence.
 
Jodie said:
There is nothing "mob rule" about anything I suggested. I certainly don't think we are hearing everything as far as what evidence they have but obviously there is no question regarding his guilt.
Click to expand...

There's nothing "mob rule" about mob justice?

As for the highlighted portion, this is a dangerous mindset.

On second thought, let's go back to the days of Plato, where the general populous could vote to execute you. Then we'd be safe! ;)
 
Last edited:
Myron Proudfoot said:
Of course he should. US citizen who committed his crime in the US. Why is this even an issue? :confused:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure but I think the key reasons are:

  • Only a naturalised U.S. citizen and only became one a year ago
  • Muslim
  • Terrorist

None of which are reasons to send him to Guantanamo Bay but then again I don't understand why the guys in the orange jumpsuits are there either (if guilty they should be in gaol somewhere, if not they should be release IMO). It's as indefensible as U.K internment during the Northern Ireland "troubles".
 
angrysoba said:
An interesting article by Glenn Greenwald here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/20/boston-marathon-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-mirnada-rights
Click to expand...

Thanks it is an interesting article.
...[the] "public safety" exception to Miranda...first created in 1984 by the more conservative Supreme Court justices in New York v. Quarles...that where police officers took a very brief period to ask focused questions necessary to stop an imminent threat to public safety without first Mirandizing the suspect, the answers under those circumstances would be admissible....
Click to expand...

I didn't know the information gained was still admissible. And people have written the exact opposite here, ("It's lawful for the government to intentionally violate Miranda as long as they don't attempt to submit the suspect's statements in court.") citing it as a reason why the police should not question Dzhokhar Tsarnaev under this exception, without Mirandizing him, since everything he told them would then become inadmissible at his trial.

The problem with the hi-lited statement is, the website linked as a citation was discussing statements made prior to the Miranda rights being read in an ordinary criminal case not one where police have invoked the Public Safety Exception. We might want to remember that, since people will undoubtedly use that argument again.

Very good and useful information, thanks.
 
Jodie said:
No I didn't, they never had concrete evidence for those three, but in this case they evidently do.
Click to expand...

But what if that concrete evidence was against YOU, even through you just happened to be in the vicinity of the bombings? What if, by some combination of bizarre factors, all the evidence initially pointed to you as the obvious guilty party? And you were innocent.

Not sayin' he's not guilty and shouldn't be tried, convicted if guilty, and punished if convicted, but those rights you are so willing to leapfrog are there to protect you and me and everyone else. We have to treat every suspect as if they were innocent, because they might be.

Richard Jewell is a great example. He was hounded by the FBI and the press for three months and turned out to have done nothing worse than initially discovering a bomb at the Atlanta Olympics and helping move bystanders to safety.
 
DGM said:
I don't agree. If a US citizen did the act in cooperation with a foreign group, I would consider that an enemy combatant.
Click to expand...

They have no evidence that he acted in concert with any terrorist groups.

More importantly, evidence that he acted in concert with Al Qaeda or related groups, doesn't mean he is guilty.

Do we really want to strip American citizens detained on American soil, of cherished 5th & 6th Amendment rights?
 
Last edited:
Courier said:
They have no evidence that he acted in concert with any terrorist groups.

More importantly, evidence that he acted in concert with Al Qaeda or related groups, doesn't mean he is guilty.

Do we really want to strip American citizens detained on American soil, of cherished 5th & 6th Amendment rights?
Click to expand...
I never said they did. I was responding to your general rule concerning who could be classified as an enemy combatant.

Only people detained in other countries or who are in the USA illegally, should be declared "enemy combatants"
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom