Should we try Tsarnaev in the USA?

[newyorkguy]

The Wall Street Journal reports FBI investigators as saying the Tsarnaev brothers' purpose in the Boston Marathon bombing was a desire to 'strike back' at the US for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Apparently Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has told investigators that they received no outside help or guidance, they found all they needed on the Internet.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told investigators that the brothers were self-trained and self-indoctrinated, and were striking back at the U.S. for killing Muslims. His statements and other evidence have led U.S. authorities so far to believe that the bombers weren't part of a larger terror group, though no firm conclusions have been made.

Link

One security specialist said, this is the greatest fear of anti-terror agencies: homegrown terrorists who use, primarily, the Internet to gain Jihadist knowledge and philosophy, tactics and technical guidance on how to carry out terrorist attacks. One official said that these kinds of terrorists are "not visible" until they actually "do something."

 

[Jodie]

I can confidently say that if you took that pov over to a US 'gun rights' thread you'd be ripped to shreds. Rights are rights. Right? Or are they only "rights" when they right?

Not to get off topic, but all anyone can really do to me in any thread is whoop me upside the head with a CAPS lock.

 

[newyorkguy]

If I can get away with another 'fair use' quote from WSJ, they also reported:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told interrogators that he and his brother used a bomb-making recipe from al Qaeda's online Inspire magazine, U.S. officials said.

Link

 

[L.Y.S.]

I don't think they take that classification lightly (as seen from the fact he was not charged that way). This is for the times when the person can be shown to not hold these rights for others, why should he/she receive them in return? It still provides more rights than in the majority of the world.

He won't be tried as an enemy combatant. The Obama administration chose not to make our justice system ****. Thanks president Obama.

Which was the point I was trying to make earlier to those attempting to be more politically correct.

No one was trying to be "politically correct". Some people are smart enough to see the dangers of mob justice. Some day mob justice can come to you, or anyone you love. It's a dangerous flame that needs to be snuffed out. At any rate, he will not be tried as a combatant, Obama and Holder have decided that Mr. Tsarnaev will be tried in a regular court.

 

[Natan]

And what if, say, someone is suspected of sending ricin letters? Suppose he ends up in Gitmo and no one will bother to look for any evidence against the allegations? People should just trust the authorities that the allegations are actually true?

 

[linusrichard]

Which was the point I was trying to make earlier to those attempting to be more politically correct.

Or just correct.

 

[Nessie]

Maybe one day US citizens will be detained by another country and then shipped to that country's version of Gitmo and held with trial etc. Then those Americans who support places like that may finally understand what a vile and disgusting place Gitmo is and what a stain on the USA it has been.

 

[Nessie]

Stripping away Constitutional rights from terrorist suspects is all find & good, until it happens to someone you know and love.

Or to you.

Exactly.

 

[I Am The Scum]

While I agree with most everyone here, that the accused retains his rights despite the notoriety of the crime, I feel that there has been far too much emphasis on his status as an American citizen. The fact is, citizenship plays no role on due process for crimes committed in the United States. You have the right to a fair trial, to remain silent, etc., whether you were born and raised in Kentucky, or if you are a Canadian visiting New York.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Which was the point I was trying to make earlier to those attempting to be more politically correct.

Or just correct.

Exactly. Sometimes the right answer is just right.

While I agree with most everyone here, that the accused retains his rights despite the notoriety of the crime, I feel that there has been far too much emphasis on his status as an American citizen. The fact is, citizenship plays no role on due process for crimes committed in the United States. You have the right to a fair trial, to remain silent, etc., whether you were born and raised in Kentucky, or if you are a Canadian visiting New York.

Thanks for bringing this up as it is a very valid point.

I think the Daily Show has hit on this in the past. Was it the shoe bomber or the underwear bomber? I can't really recall . . .

 

[newyorkguy]

If I can get away with another 'fair use' quote from WSJ, they also reported:

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev told interrogators that he and his brother used a bomb-making recipe from al Qaeda's online Inspire magazine, U.S. officials said.

Link

When I was writing the above message I thought, because I had already linked the WSJ article, it might be cool to go to the al Qaeda site, find Inspire and look for the "pressure-cooker bomb" page.

I got as far as Google. Just before my finger hit the "a" key, a little voice said, "Ummm this might not be such a cool idea after all. Stick with the Wall Street Journal link. Might be a lot safer...for everyone."

 

[Jodie]

Or just correct.

No, I think I had it right the first time.

 

[Jodie]

He won't be tried as an enemy combatant. The Obama administration chose not to make our justice system ****. Thanks president Obama.



No one was trying to be "politically correct". Some people are smart enough to see the dangers of mob justice. Some day mob justice can come to you, or anyone you love. It's a dangerous flame that needs to be snuffed out. At any rate, he will not be tried as a combatant, Obama and Holder have decided that Mr. Tsarnaev will be tried in a regular court.

The man and his brother blew up the Boston Marathon, there is no question about that. I don't think it matters in this case what kind of justice is dished out as long as it gets done. He needs to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country since he resents our way of life.

 

[Dr. Keith]

The man and his brother blew up the Boston Marathon, there is no question about that. I don't think it matters in this case what kind of justice is dished out as long as it gets done. He needs to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country since he resents our way of life.

The fact that we don't do the underlined is part of why he resents us. You would have us stoop to his level because he is complaining about us being too damn tall.

Is this a joke?

 

[ronin688]

I don't think it matters in this case what kind of justice is dished out as long as it gets done.

To me, this is an extremely un-American way to think.

Your whole country was founded on the principles of the rule of law. You don't get to pick and choose who gets rights and who doesn't based on how angry you are at them.

If you don't apply your own rules fairly against everyone regardless of what they've done, then you're betraying the ideals your founding fathers fought and died for.

 

[I Am The Scum]

... since he resents our way of life.

You seem to be quite resentful, yourself.

 

[angrysoba]

He needs to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country since he resents our way of life.

I'll bet he drove a Hyundai instead of a Ford as well. That kind of hatred of the American way of life is sufficient to have him lose his Constitutional Rights in my legal opinion extracted from my posterior.

 

[linusrichard]

The man and his brother blew up the Boston Marathon, there is no question about that. I don't think it matters in this case what kind of justice is dished out as long as it gets done. He needs to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country since he resents our way of life.

"Our way of life" includes fair trials for accused criminals. Do you need to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country, since you pretty clearly appear to resent our way of life?

(My answer, of course, is no. But I'm interested in whether you'll stick to your position, or if you have a different rule for yourself.)

 

[L.Y.S.]

He needs to be tried as a combatant or sent out of the country since he resents our way of life.

If these are your qualifications for being tried as an enemy combatant, then tens of millions of Americans would qualify to be prosecuted, including counter culture pacifists.

You seriously can't see the danger in mob justice? Must we repeat 1930s Germany again to see the danger in this mindset?

The man and his brother blew up the Boston Marathon, there is no question about that. I don't think it matters in this case what kind of justice is dished out as long as it gets done.

And the constitution guarantees all citizens (which Mr. Tsarnaev is) equal rights and protections under the law. Mr. Tsarnaev is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, in appearance before his peers on the jury. Seriously, how can you call your self an American and not support his right to due process?

At any rate, as previously stated, Mr. Tsarnaev will appear before a civil court and tried. He will not be tried as a combatant before a military tribunal. He doesn't even fit the criteria to be an enemy combatant. He is a naturalized citizen, which means that if he is tried as a combatant, you can be tried as an enemy combatant. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[L.Y.S.]

I would like to add, that Jahar, the younger of the two suspects, grew up in America. The guy was like 7 when he came to the United States. He lived here for most of his life. If this sort of hatred can happen to someone who has lived here for most of their life, then it can happen to anyone. Jodie would like for us to believe that returning his hatred, and discriminating against an entire group is the solution to stopping terrorism. One only needs to remember what "stopping terrorism" has meant in the past.

Over the past year we've witnessed "terrorism" from white male suspects. They went and shot up malls, elementary schools, and movie theaters. These men killed, maimed, and destroyed communities. Did we take away their rights to due process and a speedy trial by civil law? If we didn't do it in these situations, when other CITIZENS committed such heinous acts, then I fail to see why we should do it when another CITIZEN commits a heinous act.

There are millions of young men that feel like Jahar, who live in the United States, and who don't have his faith or skin color. Most of them will never act on these urges or proclivities. A few unfortunate souls will. Should we try all these men and lock them up even though they haven't committed a crime? Should we lock up anyone who disagrees? I hope the answer is self explanatory.

What some members of this forum are talking about is dangerous nonsense. It's a disastrous recipe for Roman salutes and chants to an oppressive overlord. Most importantly, it's a dangerous excuse for one group of human beings to eliminate another group of human beings.