CSI, Boston

What’s the point? So we can use “enemy combatant” status as a way to bypass the civil rights afforded in the criminal justice system? I think that’s a dangerous precedent. If it’s information they’re looking for, I don’t think they’ll have a difficult time finding it even if he does clam up. The kid’s clearly not a mastermind. I’m sure he left electronic clues all over the place.

I should also say that saying somebody is “entitle” to their rights subtly implies that those rights are granted and not inherent. We have rights that are “endowed” to us as human beings as part of our nature; they cannot be separated from us without diminishing us. Entitlements are conferrences of eligibility for things given to us that can be rescinded – they are not permanent and inherent.

That this debate is even happening scares me.

why not treat ALL persons,with the same due process if they are on our land?

It’s reproving to see people support our rule of law. Shocking what the goby proposes

They’re charging him as a civilian

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/us/boston-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

SKP, what if he had opened fire in an Aurora, Colorado movie theater and killed 12 people and injured 58 others? Would he be charged with using a WMD?

So many issues, so little time.

1. With the exception of prisoners of war, or the covert agents of a foreign power, anyone on our soil, legally or not, is entitled to Constitutional protections and due process. There should be no question that American Citizens are entitled to these.

2. The right to a lawyer prior to interrogation affects the admissibility (against the accused) of the statements obtained without a lawyer, but not the case itself. In other words, the FBI can question Mr. Tsarnaev without a lawyer or Miranda warnings all they want to, but they must know that they will not be able to use any statements they obtain from that interrogation, nor any evidence derived from those statements, against Mr. Tsarnaev. But I am pretty sure they could use that evidence against anyone else. So, an important question is whether the government’s case is sufficiently strong such that it does not need a confession to “sew it up”. If they aren’t going to use his statements against HIM, I am pretty sure the feds can interrogate him all day long in an attempt to obtain intelligence about other people.

3. As for his American citizenship, either he has it or he doesn’t. Like being pregnant, how recently citizenship is obtained does not matter. Citizenship DOES open up Mr. Tsarnaev to a charge of treason, however, that would not otherwise be available.

4. I don’t know the legal definition of “weapon of mass destruction”, but there almost certainly is one if anyone has time to look it up. Whether the bomb(s) used by the Tsarnaev brothers meet that definition will depend on what that definition is.

Section 921 of 18 USC:

(4) The term “destructive device” means –
(A) any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas –
(i) bomb,
(ii) grenade,
(iii) rocket having a propellant charge of more than four
ounces,
(iv) missile having an explosive or incendiary charge of more
than one-quarter ounce,
(v) mine, or
(vi) device similar to any of the devices described in the
preceding clauses;
(B) any type of weapon (other than a shotgun or a shotgun shell
which the Attorney General finds is generally recognized as
particularly suitable for sporting purposes) by whatever name
known which will, or which may be readily converted to, expel a
projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, and
which has any barrel with a bore of more than one-half inch in
diameter; and
(C) any combination of parts either designed or intended for
use in converting any device into any destructive device
described in subparagraph (A) or (B) and from which a destructive
device may be readily assembled.
The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is
neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device,
although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is
redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing,
safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given
by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section
4684(2), 4685, or 4686 of title 10; or any other device which the
Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an
antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for
sporting, recreational or cultural purposes.

The term “destructive device” shall not include … a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes. (Emphases added)

So a rifle which the owner intends to use for home defense could be considered a WMD? Interesting if so.

We should also be concerned about that the complete and utter violation of the 4th amendment that occurred as the looked for this guy. Here is some video the Law Enforcement (not sure which agencies – although at least one guy appears to be in an Army uniform) forcing the residents out of their home at gun point and sending them down the block where they are detained while the officers search their home. They did this to entire sections of the city, claiming exigent circumstances (i.e hot pursuit ) allowed them to enter homes without a warrant. We should be very concerned that the gov’t thinks it can apply an exception to the 4th amendment to an entire city. There was no hot pursuit. They were not actively following his trail. They lost his trail and were searching in desperation. This is not America.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8

Tom:

On the contrary. The thing that is being overlooked is how ineffective the police state tactics were. Those heavily armed nimrods spent all day violating the Constitution and couldn’t catch a cold. The terrorist was caught because a citizen who went outside and looked around his backyard and saw some blood.

Tom, you are thinking about it incorrectly. Two guys with small arms and homemade bombs a.) killed and injured lots of people, b.) shut down Boston, and c.) evaded an army of officers, and were only captured when a ordinary citizen helped out.

The point is that small arms are incredibly effective. Maybe not ultimately so, when faced with the unlimited firepower of the government, but they are disproportionally effective. The police know this, which is why they arrive in body armor and use robots. One man with a couple guns can do a lot of damage. California, Colorado, Connecticut – all of these situations reveal that if every home had weapons, and if all of those people decided to turn against the police, the government would be in real trouble. The police wins these battles by putting 50 or 100 or 1000 men with military grade weapons up against 1 or 2 guys with light arms.

That this debate is even happening scares me.

why not treat ALL persons, with the same due process if they are on our land?

Indeed.

When you think about it, it seems somewhat surreal that we would take due process so seriously as a country when a million would-be citizens are denied life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness every year.

Out of sight, out of mind, as they say.

Tom:

There are literally hundreds of millions of firearms in private hands in this country (ironically, this number has increased recently due to the recent, unsuccessful attempts to reduce them). While one or two guys will eventually overcome, even by incompetents like those in Massachusetts, 200 million armed Americans are enough to deter real tyranny. Not that you would be much help.

And it does not hurt to remember that quite a few of the people who join the military and the police are the same people whose families have guns at home. They would not all turn against their own. It is the best deterrent to tyranny we have.

Kerner @ 29 … touchy, touchy! You seriously believe gun ownership is what stands between the American people and a tyrannical government? Ha! It was the Founders’ argument that so long as the American people practiced the virtues, tyranny would be impossible. Not gun ownership but virtuousness! In other words, if we ever get to the point where armed rebellion is necessary, it will be because tyranny has come to pass – and tyranny will have come to pass because the people ceased to be virtuous. So, at that point, armed rebellion will be nothing but the trading of one set of tyrants for another.

Oh, and if the practice of the virtues is what guarantees liberty, no one is doing more to guarantee liberty than I am. 😛

Tom:

” It was the Founders’ argument that so long as the American people practiced the virtues, tyranny would be impossible. Not gun ownership but virtuousness! In other words, if we ever get to the point where armed rebellion is necessary, it will be because tyranny has come to pass – and tyranny will have come to pass because the people ceased to be virtuous. So, at that point, armed rebellion will be nothing but the trading of one set of tyrants for another.”

You say po-tay-to and I say po-tah-to. 😀 I really wish you could see that things like courage, vigilance, and a willingness to lay down ones life for ones friends are virtues, and are included in the virtues that the founders were talking about. There may be nothing virtuous about bearing arms per se. But the willingness to bear arms in the defense of ones neighbor is clearly virtuous. “Greater love hath no man…etc.”

I even agree with you that if “armed rebellion” ever becomes necessary it will probably be too late because tyranny will already be here, and most likely the result would only be the replacement of one tyranny by another. If history is any gauge, that is, in fact, what usually happens.

It is not rebellion to fight to preserve authority which is already ones own. But that is slightly beside the point I’m trying to make right now.

The point is you are right about the preservation of our republic depending on the attitudes of the American people vis a vis their government or “virtues” as you call those attitudes. If the American people think of themselves as an integral part of their government with the authority to control it (and the means to use force if necessary is a huge part of authority and control) then they will be involved and will be respected by their public servants. If the public servants perceive themselves as the only people with the means to use force, they won’t remain public servants for long.

It is the idea that We the People have guns (guns = authority) and that the government employees (right up to the President) are public SERVANTS,/i> that helps preserve our republic. It is not the only factor, but it is certainly a necessary and vital factor. I wish you wouldn’t ignore that.

Meanwhile, if you want to continue practicing many of the other virtues that the founders thought were important, you go right ahead. I misspoke when I said you aren’t much help. I’m sure you help a lot. But so do the rest of us.

Trotk, you’re imagining mass rebellion, which I believe is unlikely. Sure, a lot of households have guns, but if push ever comes to shove, most of these gun owners are going to say, “I have a spouse, children, a job, and a house – I think I’ll sit the rebellion out and just hope for the best.” Which leaves mostly young, unmarried males to carry out the armed rebellion. But even a good portion of these young men will say, “I prefer to finish college and get going on my career – even under a tyranny.” So, if you think it through just a little bit, an armed rebellion would certainly present our government with a difficult (and probably drawn out) situation, but one that’s much more manageable than NRA/fantastical thinking wants to admit.

Tom, it isn’t so much that I think mass rebellion is likely. In fact, I don’t think it is. But I do think that your idea that people brandishing weapons in defense of liberty would be put down quickly is misguided. My point is simply that it takes the government radically disproportionate force to put someone down, partially because the government is constrained by needing to appear just, partially because it is easier to be the one shooting from hiding, and partially because the government can’t kill civilians with impunity. One man with a gun is not easily put down when you consider the firepower, manpower, and time necessary to ferret him out without destroying a whole neighborhood. The former officer in California and the brothers in Boston are examples of this.

And thus if there were a rebellion, it is naive to believe the government could stop it quickly. If the government can’t stop a single man without squadrons and armored vehicles, what could they do in the face of actual rebellion? Short of bombing the locations of the rebels, very little, because they don’t have the manpower to go door-to-door against a million people, let alone 10 or 20 million. Again, I am not saying it is going to happen, but small arms, IED’s, booby-trapped homes, and guerrilla warfare are pretty effective against larger, more sophisticated forces.