Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[newyorkguy]

If I'm not mistaken, the suspected terrorist is a U.S. citizen. While I know some have argued that U.S. citizens should be eligible for Gitmo, I don't think anyone has actually taken that step.

The arrested Suspect No. Two, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, is a nineteen-year-old and an American citizen. I saw this discussed last night on CNN. He is not eligible to be held at Gitmo unless he can be classified as an "enemy combatant." At least one Amercian suspect, Jose Padilla the Chicago man accused of plotting a 'dirty bomb attack,' was classified as an enemy combatant (a member of a foreign terrorist group) and held at Gitmo, but was later transferred back to civilian custody after pressure from civil liberties groups.

What Senators Graham and McCain are saying is, they don't want the suspect to have Miranda rights, they don't want him to have the option to "remain silent."

Now that the suspect is in custody, the last thing we should want is for him to remain silent," the two Senators said in the statement. "It is absolutely vital the suspect be questioned for intelligence gathering purposes. We need to know about any possible future attacks which could take additional American lives. The least of our worries is a criminal trial which will likely be held years from now."

There is a long legal process the United States would have to go through in order to classify Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an "enemy combatant." There's also no reason to believe that bringing Tsarnaev to trial will take "years." One defense lawyer interviewed last night on CNN estimated the trial could begin in as short a time as six months.

He will probably be tried in a Massachusetts court, and they do not have the death penalty there. I'm certain this suspect -- if found guilty (he's still entitled to the 'presumption of innocence' until he IS convicted) -- will spend the rest of his life behind bars. Realistically, I don't see any possible way this defendant would ever be paroled. Not after what he's accused of doing.

 

[triforcharity]

I agree. He's a US citizen so I expect he will be given a fair trial with representation. I expect it to be a circus but, fair none the less. I think finding a jury in Boston might be tough but doable.

On a side note I'm glad they got him alive but was not unhappy that he was in serious condition. I can say I wouldn't mind seeing him in court all screwed-up in a wheel-chair. Seems fitting, if this makes me a bad person, so be it.

Finding a jury in Boston that is impartial, is like trying to find an honest politician in DC. Ain't happening. I agree with the sentiment expressed.

 

[Craig B]

As a UK citizen I find it difficult to accept that such a discussion can even be started. People who are citizens of a country and are accused of atrocious crimes against fellow citizens within the territory of that country - what else could happen except that they are tried by that country's laws? If the laws are not fit for that purpose, of what possible use are they for any purpose at all?

 

[NoahFence]

They didn't need to be trained! I mean, right now anyone who wanted to make a bomb could do it. Does there always have to be a political or religious reason, a shadow organization behind it, and evil venture capitalists of terror? Can't people just do things on their own? See, for example, the Washington DC snipers, Unabomber, etc.

I'm of the opinion that this is exactly the case.

 

[NoahFence]

He will probably be tried in a Massachusetts court, and they do not have the death penalty there. I'm certain this suspect -- if found guilty (he's still entitled to the 'presumption of innocence' until he IS convicted) -- will spend the rest of his life behind bars. Realistically, I don't see any possible way this defendant would ever be paroled. Not after what he's accused of doing.

Nah, that mailbox got a couple of scratches from the 2nd bomb. Federal case!

Fry the kid.

 

[newyorkguy]

Nah, that mailbox got a couple of scratches from the 2nd bomb. Federal case!

Fry the kid.

If you know inmates -- and you want this guy to suffer -- life in prison without parole is probably much harsher than being executed. I was surprised he gave up. I expected him to make a last desperate stand and commit "suicide by cop!"

 

[triforcharity]

He will probably be tried in a Massachusetts court, and they do not have the death penalty there. I'm certain this suspect -- if found guilty (he's still entitled to the 'presumption of innocence' until he IS convicted) -- will spend the rest of his life behind bars. Realistically, I don't see any possible way this defendant would ever be paroled. Not after what he's accused of doing.

It's HIGHLY unlikely the state will get first crack at this jackass. His original crime is a federal offense first (conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction, use of a weapon of mass destruction, and others no doubt) so I'd be willing to bet he will be tried in federal court. Which, BTW, has the death penalty.


Look at McVeigh. Here's his indictment. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mcveigh/mcveighindictment.htmlFirst offense: use of a weapon of mass destruction. Violation of 18 USC Sec. 2332a

His original charge didn't matter where it was committed, as McVeigh bombed a Federal building. It won't matter in NE either.

 

[newyorkguy]

Yes, he will be released one day, so will Sirhan Sirhan too. Everyone (minus Charlie Manson) will eventually be released. The U.S. prison system can't afford prisoners aged 80+.

I doubt Sirhan Sirhan will ever be released. The New York Times reported:

....driven by tougher laws and political pressure on governors and parole boards, thousands of lifers are going into prisons each year, and in many states only a few are ever coming out, even in cases where judges and prosecutors did not intend to put them away forever....As a result the United States is now housing a large and permanent population of prisoners who will die of old age behind bars. At the Louisiana State Penitentiary in Angola, for instance, more than 3,000 of the 5,100 prisoners are serving life without parole, and most of the rest are serving sentences so long that they cannot be completed in a typical lifetime.

Link to story

Watch MSNBC's show "Lockup: Extended Stay." On many segments they interview inmates serving long sentences (over 100 years) or life without parole. These inmates commonly say, "I know I will never walk out of here. I'll die here." And they're right.

 

[Courier]

He should and will of course be tried in Federal court in Boston.

He was a legal resident of the USA and under current law, such individuals are to be tried in civilian court.

 

[phiwum]

MSNBC is reporting that Senator Lindsay Graham is saying we shouldn't put the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on trial and should instead ship him off to Gitmo for interrogation and indefinite detention without a trial or access to lawyers.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personally I'm against it. I think we tread a dangerous path when we start declaring some crimes to be above the normal legal procedures.

What Graham said is pretty inflammatory, but unless MSNBC has more details, I think it's unfair to say that Graham clearly called for indefinite detention at Gitmo without a trial.

The article at Huffington Post reproduces the tweets. Graham is suggesting at least considering treating the suspect as an enemy combatant and withholding his Miranda rights. That's not quite the same as advocating detention without a trial.

Don't get me wrong: I think that what Graham says is shocking and should be rejected. But let's try to stay as close to what he's actually and explicitly advocated, rather than try to draw conclusions about what it means.

 

[BStrong]

He is a US citizen, he commited his crimes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The only question should be if he should be tried in federal or state court.

I do believe that he should be grilled (not "enhanced interrogation") until he's got nothing left of value, but he should be tried like any other bad actor.

 

[Courier]

Poor Lindsay was just having a bad day.

The kid is an American and therefore will be treated as such.

 

[newyorkguy]

Miranda rights make clear no suspect can be questioned without informed consent. However there is one exception, the "public safety exception." When officers have a reasonable belief that a suspect may have information vital to protecting public safety they can (and do) question that suspect without a) warning him he has the right to remain silent and b) has the right to have a lawyer present.

Here's an interesting link to a discussion of this exception from the FBI website:
Link

I have read that the US AG in Massachusetts has confirmed that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be questioned under this exception. No Miranda.

I don't think Tsarnaev and his brother were part of a broader conspiracy or terrorist group, but you never know.

Did anyone hear the report I heard last night? The FBI arrested three persons in New Bedford Mass on suspicion they had some involvement in the Boston Marathon bombing? I guess it's a little early to decide this is a done deal

 

[Babbylonian]

He is a US citizen, he commited his crimes in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

The only question should be if he should be tried in federal or state court.

And even that shouldn't really be a question. It's all well and good for the feds to assist with, and perhaps even run, a high-profile investigation but these murders should not be treated as federal crimes. Trying people in federal court as terrorists - when a case can be made under local/state law - gives them a higher-profile forum for their twisted views. Trying them simply as murderers in large part removes their politics from the equation. I know some people love the idea of the death penalty (because it's been so *********** useful and so *********** fairly applied), but I think going federal to make that happen is counterproductive and is the kind of forum shopping that undermines our justice system.

 

[Courier]

And even that shouldn't really be a question. It's all well and good for the feds to assist with, and perhaps even run, a high-profile investigation but these murders should not be treated as federal crimes. Trying people in federal court as terrorists - when a case can be made under local/state law - gives them a higher-profile forum for their twisted views. Trying them simply as murderers in large part removes their politics from the equation. I know some people love the idea of the death penalty (because it's been so *********** useful and so *********** fairly applied), but I think going federal to make that happen is counterproductive and is the kind of forum shopping that undermines our justice system.

He needs to go to prison for life with no chance of parole.

Hopefully Mass. has a crime of terrorism using a WMD, which brings such a penalty.

 

[Alt+F4]

As a UK citizen I find it difficult to accept that such a discussion can even be started. People who are citizens of a country and are accused of atrocious crimes against fellow citizens within the territory of that country - what else could happen except that they are tried by that country's laws? If the laws are not fit for that purpose, of what possible use are they for any purpose at all?

People are upset, it's nothing other than discussion. This man will be legally indited, put on trial and face a jury of his peers. Why do you believe Internet nonsense?

 

[blue sock monkey]

Did anyone hear the report I heard last night? The FBI arrested three persons in New Bedford Mass on suspicion they had some involvement in the Boston Marathon bombing? I guess it's a little early to decide this is a done deal

I read a brief mention of that on the Boston Globe website last night--but when I tried to find the paragraph later, it apparently had been pulled.

 

[Toke]

MSNBC is reporting that Senator Lindsay Graham is saying we shouldn't put the surviving Boston Marathon bomber on trial and should instead ship him off to Gitmo for interrogation and indefinite detention without a trial or access to lawyers.

What are your thoughts on this?

Personally I'm against it. I think we tread a dangerous path when we start declaring some crimes to be above the normal legal procedures.

Come on, don' t be such a chicken.
That whole society of law thing is greatly overrated.

And on a different note, is it too much to hope the nutcase is voted out of the senate after being kicked out of the party?

 

[triforcharity]

And even that shouldn't really be a question. It's all well and good for the feds to assist with, and perhaps even run, a high-profile investigation but these murders should not be treated as federal crimes. Trying people in federal court as terrorists - when a case can be made under local/state law - gives them a higher-profile forum for their twisted views. Trying them simply as murderers in large part removes their politics from the equation. I know some people love the idea of the death penalty (because it's been so *********** useful and so *********** fairly applied), but I think going federal to make that happen is counterproductive and is the kind of forum shopping that undermines our justice system.

I'll disagree. I feel it sends a message. **** with the US, the weight of the whole US Government will be brought upon you, not just a state's power.

 

[newyorkguy]

I read a brief mention of that on the Boston Globe website last night--but when I tried to find the paragraph later, it apparently had been pulled.

I found some links -- and I'm posting the latest one (from roughly 4 AM this morning) Link -- but they are all very brief.

From a local news radio report:

One neighbor [in New Bedford] says he had a friendly relationship with Tsarnaev, and the three that were arrested [in New Bedford] share the same cell phone bill with the bombing suspect.

Link