Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Charged With "Using a Weapon of Mass Destruction"

[smileyeagle1021]

Put him in a room with all the people that he hurt when he exploded those bombs. It shouldn't take more than 5 minutes for him to be torn apart.

The problem with this is the assumption that the people he hurt are as depraved as he is. Sure, we all talk about how we'd like to get revenge, we all talk about righteous vengence, but could we actually do it? There is a reason why when there was firing squads they'd have 10 riflemen and only 2 bullets and 8 blanks (and they needed two bullets in case not all riflemen could pull the trigger even with the assurance that it would never be known which one of them actually killed the condemned), there is a reason why with lethal injection the controls are automated, why when we used electric chairs the person who threw the switch couldn't see the condemned, etc. Even when we know that the person deserves to die, we have too much humanity to be the one to kill them.
General population in a prison would be a different story, a lot of the people there have committed violent acts before, have even killed before, this isn't a line for them to cross to kill a fellow human being, but even they draw the line against acts of terror and would see him as deplorable and deserving death, which as I mentioned earlier, for these inmates, they don't have the strong aversion to killing that the rest of us have.

[wolfie]

General population in a prison would be a different story, a lot of the people there have committed violent acts before, have even killed before, this isn't a line for them to cross to kill a fellow human being, but even they draw the line against acts of terror and would see him as deplorable and deserving death, which as I mentioned earlier, for these inmates, they don't have the strong aversion to killing that the rest of us have.

Hence, in connection to pedos and terrorists getting the "short end of the stick" in prison, the term "ordinary decent criminals".

[Hyena Dandy]

Can we please have, like, ONE thread that's not a gun control thread?

[HYHYBT]

Not disagreeing, just wondering . . . what would be the point?

Advancing knowledge is itself a point. But do you really not see a use for potentially being able to prevent or cure such people, especially those who haven't yet done anything horrendous?

[draco664]

Yup. I didn't think US citizens (unless I'm wrong, Dzokhar is a citizen) could be 'enemy combatants' as to use that declaration don't we actually have to be at war with the country in question?

They can't . . . unless they are detained on a foriegn battle field. That's what happened to the "American Taliban", John Walker Lindh. Tsarnaev is a US citizen arrested on US soil. He can't be treated as an enemy combatant for purposes of prosecution because US citizens can't be tried by military commissions. They can be interrogated, but the answers can't be used against them in a civilian court.

Sorry Panacea, but you are 100% wrong.

Jose Padilla is a US citizen (born in NY), arrested in Chicago in 2002. Bush designated him an enemy combatant and declared that he was not entitled to trial in civilian courts. He spent three and a half years in prison without charge, trial or appearance before a judge.

His lawyer filed a habeas corpus petition, and was subsequently described by the government as an "uninvited meddler".

In 2006 the Supreme court refused to hear his case for being declared an enemy combatant, leaving the 4th circuit court's ruling that the president has that power untested.

Padilla was eventually found guilty of criminal conspiracy. Isn't it lovely to know that those pesky rights can be trampled for such an important crime...

[Panacea]

Sorry Panacea, but you are 100% wrong.

Jose Padilla is a US citizen (born in NY), arrested in Chicago in 2002.

Padilla was eventually found guilty of criminal conspiracy. Isn't it lovely to know that those pesky rights can be trampled for such an important crime...

Forgot about Padilla. The SCOTUS has really made some questionable decisions in the past few years. That was a clear cut Constitutional violation.

What we've learned about these prosecutions is that despite the fact the military commissions run by different rules, they are not anywhere near as effective as civilians courts. And Padilla was convicted in a civilian court, not a military one. So while there may be a technical "power", it's not a realistic one. I'm not so sure a future President will get away with what Bush did (though he may try).

I do wonder why we don't just charge people with good old fashioned treason anymore?

[Gravekeeper]

In 2006 the Supreme court refused to hear his case for being declared an enemy combatant, leaving the 4th circuit court's ruling that the president has that power untested.

He got stuck in limbo for so long because the Bush administration was doing everything in their power to violate the constitution. They had to fight tooth and nail through several different courts in two or three different states to do it though because, well, it was totally illegal. Any tactic they could use to stale or divert the decision ( or appeal every decision that went against them ) they did.

However, that is really more of a dickish anomaly than a common place occurrence. Bush and Co we're criminals, end of story really. If the Obama administration tried that now post 9/11 public fury it wouldn't work. Especially not with the Boston bomber as he and his brother were a solo act.

Granted, its the still the GOP that want him held as an enemy combatant.

[HYHYBT]

Why, though?

[Panacea]

Why, though?

To look tough, and make Obama look weak.

[Duelist925]

Why, though?

And possibly to set a precedent that could later be exploited. Due to the fuckery mentioned by others, the Padilla case would make for a poor precedent by itself.

[HYHYBT]

Given how loud that party is about distrust of the government and how people have to protect themselves against it, logic would dictate that that's precisely the precedent they'd want to avoid.

[Duelist925]

Given how loud that party is about distrust of the government and how people have to protect themselves against it, logic would dictate that that's precisely the precedent they'd want to avoid.

Considering their hypocrasy--"We want small government!"
"Abortions? Gay Marriage? Religion?"
"LEG-IS-LATE! LEG-IS-LATE!"


I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted that precedent purely to abuse themselves, while decrying its use by anyone else.

[smileyeagle1021]

"LEG-IS-LATE! LEG-IS-LATE!"

I think when it comes to homosexuals, feminests, and those of other faiths they would prefer EX-TER-MIN-ATE!!!!!
But... what would I know

[Gravekeeper]

I wouldn't be surprised if they wanted that precedent purely to abuse themselves, while decrying its use by anyone else.

Pretty much. There's been a few moments already where they legislated something religiously stupid in the south, then had a freak out when they realized that "religion" also included Muslims.

Like when Tenessee created school vouchers last year to let people send their children to private religious schools rather than public schools. Only to do an about face when they realized too late that Muslim schools could use it too. Now they're just writhing trying to figure out some way to have it only apply to Christian schools. But they can't because of the Constitution. ;p

[HYHYBT]

LEG-IS-LATE! LEG-IS-LATE!

Arm, meanwhile, is quite punctual