Charging the Boston bomber(s) as enemy combatants.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
|
Is this desire to put them to trial as enemy combatants driven by the fact that the two suspects bombed an area or because they have supposed Muslim ties? I am trying to understand the reasoning here since both of them were US citizens.
If the Aurora shooter bombed the movie theaters instead of shooting it up, would we want him put to trial as an enemy combatant? Recall that he also wired his apartment with bombs, so things would have been seen much different if he also bombed the theater. Would your answer change if the Aurora guy had muslim leaning whether he shot or bombed the theater? I guess I am trying to figure out if the desire here is more on the act or on the religion. I am leaning more towards religion but am willing to hear a intellectual argument (emphasis on intellectual) to sway me a bit. I think we go down a slippery slope if we pick and choose american citizens we want to claim are enemy combatants. Its one think to charge a foreign person as one, but to then decide what US citizen deserves that title based on the act or supposed ties, can lead to a cluster fuck of issues that can essentially tie things up in court even more if you really think about it. Note, I did not mention or bring up one person from either political party. I get each side has an opinion, but Im not making this in to a D v R or Bush v Obama debate. Try hard to fight the temptation for this thread |
Anonymous
|
I believe that DT cannot be charged as an enemy combatant as he is a US citizen no matter what some politicians are saying.
That said - I believe this is a moot issue as he has already been charged. |
Anonymous
| Any American Citizen can be charged as an "enemy combatant" if there are connections to a foreign entity. |
Anonymous
I agree. And clearly these acts were directed against America or Americans, even if they were recently granted citizenship. |
Anonymous
| Their citizenship was just a cover any way. All designed to make them seem more legit and, they were thought of as more legit. I think they should be stripped of their fake citizenship and sent to gitmo. |
Anonymous
And you know this how??? Based on what evidence??? |
Anonymous
| What's the point. Our track record prosecuting terrorists in civilian courts is excellent. The output from the military tribunals is terrible. On top of that, you immediately give the guy a valid reason to trigger a case that will have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. Plus you send him to Gitmo where he'll be a hero to the other inmates. |
Anonymous
|
"Supposed Muslim ties?"
They were full-fledgers. |
Anonymous
You're not a bomber wannabe, are you? You have a tone of sympathy to about these scumbags who murdered americans. Are you an american. Hmmmm |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
|
Should we have tried McVeigh as an enemy combatant? He did the same thing, except that he killed more people.
This is the US. We have one set of laws for everybody. That's the point. |
Anonymous
No, it's a tone of logic that asks -- what the hell you talkin' bout? Are you saying that a nine year old came here as a terrorist plotter? That he sat through fourth grade plotting to overthrow the government? |
Anonymous
| No, but there was definitely a foreign connection on the part of his co-conspirator. |
Anonymous
Really? Because the FSB said they have no evidence that he talked to any actual terrorist. |
Anonymous
| 6 months in Russia. He comes back and plants a bomb. And there is not connection because the FSB says so? |