Posted on 04/20/2013 12:55:08 PM PDT by yoe
Several Republican lawmakers are calling for the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings to be tried as an enemy combatant, rather than as an ordinary criminal.
“It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city,” read a Saturday statement from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.). “The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans. The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent.”
Their statement came after Dzhokar Tsarnaev was taken into custody and sent to the hospital Friday night.
[snip] “America is part of the battleground,” he said. “If you capture someone on the battleground, they should not be given the privilege of a civilian trial where they are given different rights...
[snip] “We continue to face threats from radical Islamists in small cells and large groups throughout the world,” they said. “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.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
I get so sick of people stating this and that is unconstitutional PROVE IT then have the means of force to enforce it. The supreme court is the final arbitrator of those matters. The laws we have on the books are by very definition legal until the supreme's say that one is not. Why is that so hard to understand for some. The only way that can be changed is to remove the sitting govt and replace it with a new one and that takes force of arms. All other opinions or beliefs are just that; not fact nor rule of law. This is the system with in which we live there might come a time where enough people remove the consent of the governed and back that up with the use of arms as force but until that day every thing the fedgov does is by definition legal as long as the highest court who has the authority backed by deadly force to say it is so you dont have to like it you just must obey it, or get a couple million in arms and chose option number 2.
“That’s all he would get in MA. They did away with the death penalty in 1947. That has a lot to do with why there is a lot of clamoring for him to be tried by the Feds. And, since the guy is “white,” Holder will see to it the book gets thrown at him before he spills any uncomfortable beans.”
Then perhaps we should investigate for a treason trial as well as for foreign connections. Still i have half a mind to leave him in Massachusetts’s velvet covered hands. If the people of that state want justice they should change their laws, and not ask us to do it for them.
If the man is a foreign operative that we should go after his foreign co-conspirators separably.
@14,
Include HDTV cameras for that close-up look at the eyes of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the instant the trap door swings down and he drops to hell.
ATF is an unconstitutional federal agency. It does not appear in the US constitution so it should be defunded.
SCOTUS says a lot of things but they’re not the final arbiter. The people and the states are. SCOTUS can go to hell. They say Affordable Healthcare Act is legal and once said slavery was legal. They also claim abortion to be legal.
This is not an institution I have any faith in whatsoever.
“Yeah, but don’t forget the Government was the people, or the Militia back then, they were just getting set up.”
That changes nothing, Massachusetts ‘was and is’ of the people just as much as Washington ‘was and is’. The fact that Washington was then a far more constitutional government does not change the text of that Constitution, nor the fact that the matters were dealt with.
If they can make that connection, this becomes an act of war, imo.”
You know it’s ironic too because as former Texas prosecutor is currently being brought up on criminal charges for hiding & covering up evidence. Obama and Washington probably have no fear of such repercussions.
Herbert Haupt was an American citizen who actually harmed nobody, yet was electrocuted.
Why does the young barbarian, a murder and mass-maimer, get better treatment?
That’s not a federal crime though that’s an unconstitutional federal statute passed by 218+ members of a corrupt congress whenever they passed it.
Technically speaking it’s unconstitutional. But the US government has not been following the constitution for a long time and this is where we are today. They’re out of control!
I agree
Well, one could certainly make the argument that the Mediterranean and African Western waters were not under the control or territorial waters of the US, with ease.
How ever, what I posited was is if one of the pirates came here and inflicted harm on the American peoples as a whole, like what just happened, how do you think Jefferson would have reacted to it?
I just don’t get the “decision” about “whether he meant it”.
Is he the @$$-clown who swore an oath to the US on such-and-such a date in order to be a US citizen? Did he not “attack” the US in a terrorist bombing, killing and injuring large numbers of US citizens at random on such-and-such a date? Is there some way to see this as NOT a terrorist attack? I’m not even sure that this is even necessary. I forget what’s sworn to for citizenship, but I can’t believe candidates don’t have to agree to abide by US law.
I don’t think there is any “decision”. Citizenship is a Deal. Keep your oath, or you DON’T HAVE IT. Any time you break the agreement, that’s the end of it. At least that’s how I see it.
If that’s not how courts and lawyers see it, then granting citizenship to the world’s refugies and opening our borders and communities to them is just too dangerous and should be halted at once.
He probably would have dealt with it under the constitution. The navy is constitutional and so is prosecuting piracy.
If the pirate successfully came ashore and blew something up I imagine the state militias would have found him and dealt with him those days but that doesn’t validate such action now.
So is the Affordable Healthcare Act you don't have to like it but they are by definition legal, and have the full force of law behind them you cannot because of some belief you have chose not to obey well you could and the full force of law will come crashing down on you.
The people are only the final last word if they have the means and more importantly the will and then actually pick up arms for the implementation to be the final arbirator as it stands the people lack the will and as such have by default ceeded that power to the courts.
Slavery was by definition legal as well we fought a war to decided who was right and who was wrong when the people and the govt disagreed on the legality of it. That is how final arbitration is decided nothing else matters, keyboard commandos and the like is just Kabuki theater, until a group with enough physical power and the backing of the will of the people and the arms force an change to the law or govt these unpopular laws are by very definition legal and have the full force of law and the vast weaponry of the federal govt to back them up. Therefore they ARE legal until some group forcibly changes that end of discussion.
I agree. My point was and is, the Government was the people back then. Today, the Government is the people. Look at how the unarmed sheeple were told to stay in their homes and let big daddy take care of it. Back in the day the people would have been called out to handle it.
BTW, a well armed populace (militia) would have negate the militarized show of force deemed necessary to capture a 19 yo punk.
Turns out, citizens in the end facilitated and made happen the capture of said punk.
You know it’s ironic too because as former Texas prosecutor is currently being brought up on criminal charges for hiding & covering up evidence. Obama and Washington probably have no fear of such repercussions.
Which case??
Of course, it does.
That's been a spurious argument for, what, twelve years now.
I also fear that at some point certain elements of government are more interested in using their power to crush conservatives, Christians and all us other “right wing extremists” they keep chattering about.
However, and this is a big however, we are at war with Islamic Radicals that want to kill us. It doesn't matter if you, the government or anyone else doesn't acknowledge that, it is a fact and has been for some time. It doesn't matter that many refuse to accept that and as such will allow those enemies to roll over us, but I refuse to stick my head in the sand and ignore the threat. They declared war on us whether we like it or not.
Thank you for your reasoned responses. While my emotional reaction is to say,”Just take him out and lynch him,” I know that you are right about due process.
And, as you have implied, many of us here could be viewed as enemies of the state and targeted simply because we disagree with the Rats.
Ooops, meant to say back then the people were the Government...lol.
I dont believe it is spurious.
It’s not a declaration of war. A declaration of war looks like what Congress passed in 1941 against Germany and Japan.
Notice it wasn’t an “Authorization for use of force under the War Powers Act”.
Also the AUMF is specifically aimed at those responsible for 9/11.
It’s a bit tenuous to be using it to drone villages in Pakistan and Yemen to kill suspected terrorists and many children who are collateral damage and who weren’t even born on 9/11 which is what King Obama is doing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.