No, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Is Not An Enemy Combatant. He Is A Criminal

[G_j]

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/no-dzhokhar-tsarnaev-is-not-an-enemy-combatant-he-is-a-criminal/

No, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Is Not An Enemy Combatant. He Is A Criminal

DOUG MATACONIS · SATURDAY, APRIL 20, 2013 ·

<snip>

We have courts because they are essential to the protection of the rule of law and the rights of individual citizens, and they are the method by which we dispense justice under rules that are designed as much to protect us as they are to protect criminal defendants. Treating Tsarnaev, a naturalized American citizen who has lived in this country since he was eight years old, treated no differently from men who were captured on battlefields in Afghanistan and are currently sitting in the prison complex at Guantanamo Bay where they are likely to remain for a very long time, is a perversion of that system of justice in the name of a haphazard system of non-justice that has risen up in the years since the September 11 attacks. If Tsarnaey is treated as an “enemy combatant” then it would mean that any American citizen could potentially receive the same designation if the government so chose, and that they could be subjected to the same deprivations of rights, including lack of access to counsel for extended periods of time. That’s a perversion of justice and a perversion of liberty.

This isn’t new for Republicans, and especially not for Lindsey Graham, who said this last year during a debate over indefinite detention:

It has been the law of the United States for decades that an American citizen on our soil who collaborates with the enemy has committed an act of war and will be held under the law of war, not domestic criminal law,” he said. “In World War II it was perfectly proper to hold an American citizen as an enemy combatant who helped the Nazis. But we believe, somehow, in 2011, that is no longer fair. That would be wrong. My God, what are we doing in 2011? Do you not think al-Qaeda is trying to recruit people here at home? Is the homeland the battlefield? You better believe it is the battlefield.”

Graham repeated the “homeland as a battlefield” comment in an interview earlier this week with Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin:

I spoke with Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) by phone just a few minutes ago. He said of the Boston bombers: “They were radicalized somewhere, somehow.” Regardless of whether they are international or “homegrown,” he said, “This is Exhibit A of why the homeland is the battlefield.” Recalling Sen. Rand Paul’s filibuster, Graham noted that he took to the Senate floor specifically to object to Rand’s notion that “America is not the battlefield.” Graham said to me, “It’s a battlefield because the terrorists think it is.” Referring to Boston, he observed, “Here is what we’re up against,” and added, “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there [to track the suspect.]” He also slammed the president’s policy of “leading from behind and criminalizing war.”

<snip>



http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/20/gop-lawmakers-want-boston-bombing-suspect-treated-as-enemy-combatant/

GOP lawmakers want Boston bombing suspect treated as ‘enemy combatant’
By Ed O'Keefe and Rachel Weiner, Published: APRIL 20, 2:05 PM ET

<snip>

"We hope the Obama Administration will consider the enemy combatant option because it is allowed by national security statutes and U.S. Supreme Court decisions. We continue to face threats from radical Islamists in small cells and large groups throughout the world. They have, as their primary focus, killing as many Americans as possible, preferably within the United States. We must never lose sight of this fact and act appropriately within our laws and values."

McCain, Graham and Ayotte, known on Capitol Hill as the "three amigos," often travel together overseas and publicly critique the administration's handling of foreign affairs. King is a Long Island congressman whose role as a senior member of the House Intelligence Committee and the former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee permits him close access to senior intelligence, law enforcement and national security officials.

[cleduc]

1. "The term "alien" means a person who is not a citizen of the United States."

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47A/I/948a

http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/10/A/II/47A/I/948b

This chapter establishes procedures governing the
use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants
engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of
the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

Boston Bomb Suspect Became a U.S. Citizen on 9/11 Last Year
http://abcnews.go.com/US/boston-marathon-bombing-suspected-tsarnaev-brothers/story?id=19000426#.UXQKVaKG2So

The Boston suspect is not an alien and therefore, cannot be tried as an "unlawful enemy combatant" .

"The term 'lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is —
(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States;
(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or
(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States."

And he isn't a "lawful enemy combatant" either based upon my reading of the law above. Therefore, the GOP is advocating something that does not seem to be allowed by the 2006 law they designed and implemented in that he cannot be tried by a military commission.

As well, on CNN yesterday, someone was discussing the comparison of successful prosecutions via military commissions like Guantanamo (only 3? convictions) vs US civilian courts (500 convictions of terrorists) and maintained that it's a landslide in favor of the US civilian courts in terms of getting a successful prosecution.

http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/2010/02/03/terrorist-prosecutions-by-the-numbers/

The recent hysteria about how we shouldn’t be giving constitutional rights to non-U.S. citizens is a red herring. (It’s also worth noting, as Glenn Greenwald explained in an excellent post on Salon on Monday, that the Constitution requires according foreigners detained in the U.S. Constitutional rights – as the Supreme Court ruled as far back as 1886 and recently reaffirmed in its decision in Boumedienne v. Bush.)
Not only does the U.S. Constitution confer those rights, but based on the experience of our own time-tested federal justice system, sound national security policy demands it.

I don't understand beyond scoring political points why this is a debate

[G_j]

3. absolutely right. nt

[dballance]

2. The Obama Admin. Has Dropped the Term "Enemy Combatant" for GitMo Detainees - Don't Start Using

See: http://edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/13/enemy.combatant/

Let's hope they don't drag the term back out - ever.

Graham, McInsane, Ayotte, and King can just go take a flying leap. They quickly showed themselves to be unreasonable idiots with their witch hunt over Benghazi and they're not going to help themselves with this. It's becoming apparent they just want to hitch themselves to any tragedy that has the attention of the media and will get them interviews and make us suffer through McInsane on the Sunday shows some more.

On Edit: From the article: "Tsarnaev, they said, 'clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent.'” Translation: "Let's take him somewhere and torture him to get him to talk."

[whatchamacallit]

4. Thanks to the amorphous nature of "our enemy" everyone is an enemy combatant

Cool huh?

[scarletwoman]

5. The "three amigos" should be called the "three reactionary idiots".

They not only want to take away the rights of the suspect, they want to take away the rights of all U.S. citizens to have access to the legal proceedings against him.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2728539

sw

[G_j]

7. almost want to laugh at the term "three amigos"

but, just can't.

[jwirr]

6. These legislators are protecting their military involvement in the so called war on terrorism which

is the reason that 911 led to two wars and solved nothing.

[Scuba]

8. K&R