As the news dribbles out…
…here are some interesting tidbits (offered, of course, with the caveat that so much of the news about this story has been mistaken).
Was this man the inspiration for the older brother, Tamerlan Tsarnaev? Note the boxing background which they shared.
It’s been very difficult to get a bead on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s exact medical condition, but some of the reports indicate his main problem was weakness from loss of blood. If so, it seems there’s a very good chance he would be mentally competent (in the legal sense) as soon as he regains his strength.
A great deal of the news today consists of legal arguments about how the younger Tsarnaev brother should be tried, assuming he lives and is healthy enough to be prosecuted. Should he be read his Miranda rights, or should the public safety exception be activated, despite the fact that the police said the threat to the public is over? Could he be considered an enemy combatant, despite the fact that he’s an American citizen (naturalized last 9/11) committing his act on American soil? Should he be tried in Massachusetts, a state which does not have the death penalty?
Liberals and the left are predictably saying that people like Lindsay Graham, who think Tsarnaev could be considered an enemy combatant, are violating the Constitution. My opinion is that Graham’s suggestion would be a stretch, but certainly it’s not based on thin air (Graham is an accomplished lawyer and very knowledgeable in this particular arena):
Graham contends that a 1942 Supreme Court decision upholding a military trial for Nazi saboteurs who landed in Long Island during World War II authorizes the detention of Americans as enemy fighters. One of the men in the WWII case was a U.S. citizen.
As for the Miranda rights, it may be moot because of the time it could take Tsarnaev to recover enough to answer questions. But I don’t see how, considering the nature of the crime, the police could have been indicating that they knew that no public threat remained when they made that statement. They were trying to reassure a rattled public that the threat that Tsarnaev’s being at-large represented had passed, not that they knew there were no other people involved and no planned future attacks. How could that have been known at that point (or even now)?
By the way, Here’s the document that authorized a military tribunal for Lincoln’s assassins. As you can see, some of the questions involved were similar, some different. For example, when Lincoln was assassinated, Washington DC was still in a state of military readiness because the Civil War was not yet over, although it was drawing to a close. This is not the case for the US today, or for Boston; there is no conventional “hot” war. But what is the nature of the so-called “war on terror”? Are we in an (undeclared) war with Islamicist supremacist terrorists, who have declared war on us, some of whom are American citizens committing acts of mayhem and terrorism on our soil? Does it do anyone any good to say that these acts by these perpetrators should fall under the regular criminal justice system?
The Lincoln assassination military tribunal proclamation had this to say (note especially part 2):
But enemies with which an army has to deal are of two classes:
1. Open, active participants in hostilities, as soldiers who wear the uniform, move under the flag, and hold the appropriate commission from their government. Openly assuming to discharge the duties and meet the responsibilities and dangers of soldiers, they are entitled to all belligerent rights, and should receive all the courtesies due to soldiers. The true soldier is proud to acknowledge and respect those rights, and every cheerfully extends those courtesies.
2. Secret, but active participants, as spies, brigands, bushwackers, jayhawkers, war rebels and assassins. In all wars, and especially in civil wars, such secret, active enemies rise up to annoy attack and army, and must be met and put down by the army. When lawless wretches become so impudent and powerful as to not be controlled and governed by the ordinary tribunals of a country, armies are called out, and the laws of war invoked. Wars never have been and never can be conducted upon the principle that an army is but a posse comitatus of a civil magistrate.
The Lincoln assassination conspirators were home-grown American citizens. The difference was that they were acting during a time of official war. The Tsarnaevs were acting during a time of undeclared war in the formal sense. Should this limitation protect the surviving perpetrator from a military tribunal?
The problem is war if a declared state of hostilties between states, for exmple the United States and the Empire of Japan. Radical Islam is not a state, and as such can not declare war in the legal sense. Yet in the real sense radicai Islam has been at war with us since at least 1994, the first attack on the World Trade Center.
I wish to extend no advantage to Tsarnaev for not being the uniformed combatant of recognized state. If he can be sbown to a member of some enemy belligerents, then have no problem deeming him an enemy combatant. I am not yet aware of such evidence.
I firmly disagree that we are not in a hot war — for we are in a long war with AQ.
And from what little the Russians are leaking, their FSB informed our FBI of Darth Tamerlan — and his sabbatical to the ‘Stans — and the campgrounds of AQ franchisees.
He committed high treason in wartime.
That was his intent — straight up.
Too many people are unable to bring themselves to accept the nature of the hostilities (a stealth war). This is different. This is an army of religious zealots from many corners of the world who are united by their religious beliefs and is attacking all the developed nations of the West. To many it appears like a chihuahua nipping at the heels of a labrabdor retriever. They think, “Oh, it’s a nuisance, but nothing serious.” Unfortunately, we are spending a lot of blood and treasure and we aren’t really having that much impact on this religious army, which numbers as many as a 100 million members.
There are three things fueling the jihadis. Money from the Muslim oil states, imams preaching death to the infidels, and dead end societies where the young men have little or no future.
We thought we could transform Iraq into a society with opportunity to discourage young men from being radicalized. Somehow someone (does anyone remember when we decided we could transform Afghanistan?) decided we could also possibly do the same thing in Afghanistan. We now know that it was a fool’s mission because the radical Muslims are numerous enough and violent enough to prevent transforming their societies.
We need to change our strategy. We need to start an all out effort to ramp up oil production everywhere in the West. Especially here in the U.S. By driving oil prices down, we could turn OPEC into a toothless relic. That would help shrink the money supply available to the jihadis.
Secondly we need to openly acknowledge who the enemy is and identify the radical imams who are preaching death. We should constantly tell them we have no beef with Islam. That we want to live and let live, but we don’t intend to let them keep on attacking us without consequence. We can mock the the radical imams – openly showing what murderous bile they are preaching and showing how Godless they really are. And we can unleash some black ops on them. They are operating under a shelter of our tolerance for freedom of religion and laughing at us for being so naive. None of the imams families or associates are actually doing any of the dangerous killing that they urge the faithful to do. They are sitting there whipping the faithful into a frenzy while feeling safe and invulnerable. We know who most of them are. We even know where many of them live. Why should they be safe from the death and destruction they are urging others to commit?
If we persist in the strategy of trying to deal with the foot soldiers one at a time, we will keep flailing away, wasting resources, and making no headway at all. Who wants to be dealing with jihadis like the Tsaraev brothers fifty years from now? If we don’t change course that is exactly what we’re looking at.
blert: we are not in disagreement, except for the definition of “hot war.” I mean “hot war” in the conventional sense. Of course there are armed hostilities in this war. But it is undeclared, and not officially between states.
blert: also, treason is notoriously difficult to prove. although it certainly should be investigated and pursued if applicable to this case.
To try him for treason, or as an unlawful enemy combatant, the U.S. government would have to declare that he was practicing Jihad- Islamic Holy War.
That’s NOT going to happen. Even if he admits to Jihad in open court, our government as currectly exists will not officially recognize Jihad exists between Islam and the United States.
His case will be handled by the criminal justice system.
I’m not quite sure which one is the greater threat in the long run, the Leftist alliance for a better tomorrow or Islamic Shariah for a more Godly Allah obedient world. They are both, to certain degrees, much alike.