NYTimes: Legal Questions Riddle Boston Marathon Case
The article excerpted below notes that there are a "host of freighted legal issues" surrounding this case, concerning the type of charge, which court to try him in, whether the act was a crime or an act of war, etc. All of these "freighted legal issues," it seems to me, arise from the fact that we are trying to turn what looks as if it was a heinous crime by a couple of disturbed individuals into an act of terrorism. The Justice Department is charging him with terrorism. I suspect that decision was intended to quiet conservative critics as much as anything (Krauthammer had a piece in the Washington Post the other day lambasting the President for being too timid about naming the Boston bombing a "terrorist" act). Here's a question that I think clarifies the issue: did anybody even suggest trying the Aurora, CO shooter as an enemy combatant, or to charge him with terrorism? No, of course not. He was simply a mass murderer. What is really the difference between the two cases, other than that the Boston bombers were Muslims? Nothing of substance that I can see. But it is a mistake to think that every crime committed by a Muslim is necessarily part of some wider movement, particularly when there is nothing that really suggests that was the case.
So, if my theory about the Justice Department's decision is correct, because the Administration doesn't want to risk accusations of being "soft on terror," although they know charging him as an enemy combatant wouldn't hold water, they think they can placate Republicans by charging the guy as a terrorist. But for this Administration to think that they can mollify Republicans in any way at all, given the history of the past four years, would be absurdly naive. Republicans will scream and stomp their feet and yell "Socialist!" and all manner of other things they typically do irrespective of whatever this Administration decides for or against doing. So, since you're not going to quiet that side of the room in any case, why not follow a more correct course -- trying him as any other mass murderer (unless evidence of a real terrorist link emerges) -- that doesn't incur the kinds of legal complications trying him as a terrorist incurs?
[font size = 2 color="gray"]By ETHAN BRONNER, CHARLIE SAVAGE and WILLIAM K. RASHBAUM
Published: April 20, 2013[/font]
The capture of the Boston Marathon bombing suspect raises a host of freighted legal issues for a society still feeling the shadow of Sept. 11, including whether he should be read a Miranda warning, how he should be charged, where he might be tried and whether the bombings on Boylston Street last Monday were a crime or an act of war.
< . . . >
¶ President Obama described the attack that Mr. Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamerlan, 26, were accused of committing as “terrorism.” Tamerlan Tsarnaev was killed.
¶ The administration has said it planned to begin questioning the younger Mr. Tsarnaev for a period without delivering the Miranda warning that he had a right to remain silent and to have a lawyer present.
< . . . >
Still, there is not yet any public evidence suggesting that Mr. Tsarnaev was part of Al Qaeda or its associated forces — the specific enemy with which the United States is engaged in an armed conflict. And some legal specialists also doubted that the Constitution would permit holding a suspect like Mr. Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant.
< . . . >
= new reply since forum marked as read
