if terrorists were evil masterminds and/or controlled by government forces vastly more powerful than we could possibly hope to comprehend, maybe then we're all not possibly capable of bad things, either. it's that other that's the problem, not human fallibility.

glenn greenwald appears upset at obama and the DOJ for things they didnt do in this case, regarding Miranda rights. they didnt roll anything back here, nor did they abuse anything, but he's still ranting and raving in his columns. this is why he is marginalized and written off by so many.

jerseyhoya wrote:

Monkeyboy wrote:Gun buyers aren't muslim terrorists!!!

The one that gets me is McCain. That guy should know that being held without due process and rights is just wrong. I guess since he folded under torture (as I would have), he thinks everyone else will.

McCain was a prisoner of war, and I don't think he has anything against people holding prisoners of war or enemy combatants. He's against the use of torture on prisoners of war or detainees. Being classified as an enemy combatant != torture.

I don't think it makes sense to do so in this case because it appears from everything we know at the moment that they weren't a part of a larger terrorist cell. But if all signs were pointing to an ongoing threat, I'd hope they would see if there was any way for them to do it.

Being classified as an enemy combatant isn't the same as torture, but I don't like the other stuff that comes along with the label. I would think a guy who has experienced torture and the removal of his rights would err on the other side.

McCain was a prisoner of war. Their rights are (rightfully) kind of limited. His (limited) rights were not respected, and he was tortured. Why should that mean McCain should err on some other side in a completely unrelated situation?

I don't think prisoner of war and enemy combatant are as different as you're trying to make them sound. I think someone who has had their rights ignored or violated might be sympathetic to the idea of maintaining those rights.

McCain disagrees

An important difference between enemy combatant and pow is that wars end--a cease fire is signed, and pows are sent home, because the fighting is over and they are no longer a threat. But a terrorist is not really part of an army in the same way. Even if say Al Qaeda falls apart, the individuals sympathetic to their cause are still a threat. If you capture a terrorist, there's nothing to stop that person from engaging in terrorism.

Sentencing them to prison helps prevent them from committing future acts.

seems odd to single out McCain instead of people in the department and administration making the call

pacino wrote:Sentencing them to prison helps prevent them from committing future acts.

Then you're saying they've done something illegal. Which of course is true, but that's yet another distinction between a POW and an enemy combatant. Remember, the "enemy combatant" status (which was poorly thought out by the Bush administration) was designed to be a legal status for Al Qaeda members captured in Afghanistan. These people probably themselves have not committed acts of terrorism against the US, but they were clearly willing to do so if the opportunity arose. Some were sent to Gitmo, where their legal status was uncertain. That's precisely why Gitmo was chosen.

All that being said, the Boston bombers are not, I don't think, enemy combatants, but criminals. And from what I see, the one who's still alive is being treated as such.

From the perspective of domestic terrorism, it's a tough question as to how far the criminal justice system can go in preventing attacks. At what point in the planning process has a crime been committed? Recently, a member of the Benton County Arkansas Republican Party posted in the party newsletter musings about exercising second amendment rights against members of the state legislature who voted to expand Medicaid. Is that a crime in itself? Does he have to be "serious" in his threats? How would we determine seriousness? If we need actual acts, then law enforcement has a pretty narrow window to prevent something bad from happening.

Now, not to go all PtK paranoid here, but I suspect if you google "how to make a bomb out of fertilizer" you will show up on a list. And I'm not sure I have a problem with that.

It's probably a bit early to say whether or not they're enemy combatants, isn't it?

since they've already charged him in a US District court as a US citizen, the "enemy combatant" thing is moot now, right? he's going through the proper legal procedures

IDK how that works if they find something out (like what happened those 6 months in Russia with the older brother), but I think TV was just kind of saying he just thinks it's a domestic act

Monkeyboy wrote:I don't think prisoner of war and enemy combatant are as different as you're trying to make them sound. I think someone who has had their rights ignored or violated might be sympathetic to the idea of maintaining those rights.

I think McCain's distinction is whether you don't treat the prisoners wounds and systematically torture him over the course of years or if you treat them like a person for the most part, just not a person who gets to be tried in civilian court.

The Dude wrote:IDK how that works if they find something out (like what happened those 6 months in Russia with the older brother), but I think TV was just kind of saying he just thinks it's a domestic act

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/en ... ants/p5312

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The reason I don't think the Boston bomber is classified as an enemy combatant is because it's unnecessary to do so. Since he's being charged with federal crimes, he potentially faces the death penalty. The status, as I understand it, is used for those who haven't committed a crime that can be prosecuted in the US.

I understand what it is, i just misunderstood what you meant since they already decided how to handle the case

Grotewold wrote:

Doll Is Mine wrote::lol: at Al Sharpton trying to pronounce Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's name.

Drakkar Show'nuff

dammit, figures I'd already have a username

CNN is horrible.

TenuredVulture wrote:

The Dude wrote:IDK how that works if they find something out (like what happened those 6 months in Russia with the older brother), but I think TV was just kind of saying he just thinks it's a domestic act

http://www.cfr.org/international-law/en ... ants/p5312

An “enemy combatant” is an individual who, under the laws and customs of war, may be detained for the duration of an armed conflict. In the current conflict with al Qaida and the Taliban, the term includes a member, agent, or associate of al Qaida or the Taliban. In applying this definition, the United States government has acted consistently with the observation of the Supreme Court of the United States in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1, 37-38 (1942): “Citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts are enemy belligerents within the meaning of the Hague Convention and the law of war.”

“Enemy combatant” is a general category that subsumes two sub-categories: lawful and unlawful combatants. See Quirin, 317 U.S. at 37-38. Lawful combatants receive prisoner of war (POW) status and the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Unlawful combatants do not receive POW status and do not receive the full protections of the Third Geneva Convention. (The treatment accorded to unlawful combatants is discussed below).

The reason I don't think the Boston bomber is classified as an enemy combatant is because it's unnecessary to do so. Since he's being charged with federal crimes, he potentially faces the death penalty. The status, as I understand it, is used for those who haven't committed a crime that can be prosecuted in the US.

Not to nitpick, but in Quirin, the subjects of the case were German saboteurs operating within the United States, one of whom was a US citizen. All were captured in the US. http://www.oyez.org/cases/1940-1949/1941/1941_1_ORIG

Until the War on Terror, the status was intended to fill in the gap between those persons subject to the laws of war (fall under Article IV of Third Geneva) and citizens (fall under Article III of Third Geneva). The problem is that AQ (obviously) isn't covered by Geneva at all, so there's tons and tons of room for the US to do basically whatever it wants.