Lazenby: Boston Bombing Justice
A week after Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s dramatic capture and subsequent interrogationYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
A week after Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s dramatic capture and subsequent interrogationYou must Subscribe or log in to read the rest of this content.
124 comments
There is NO Debate. Americans would rather have justice, to ensure freedom. But we don’t mater to a leftwing Thrashing machine, that puts dogma ahead of human lives and dignity…
The Media Squelches Debate, liberal drones pick up the mantra of Terrorist Rights and Obama has ALL the power to do as he pleases..and he does…
Justice for the child that was blown apart running to his mothers’ arms are about protected as the babies your abortion doctors butcher, all in the name of Women’s rights…
You always prevail, BECAUSE you are corrupt, hard, hateful, unilateral and brutal.
You care about propaganda and winning…not debate or justice.
Just like your fucking hero Adam Lanza.
Lanza was a STAUNCH GOTH Liberal….who Obama keeps away from treatment because it makes you Dumb@$$#$ feel good…no matter how many children he kills…just like Lazenby, here…
An excellent post by Ms. Lazenby. I hope Senator Graham (who claims to be a lawyer) reads it.
Why does he need to read this one? Every leftwing, America Hater from Bill Mahr and Rachael Maddow to Charlie Sheen and Juan Williams have been puking up this same ol’ “Rights for Terrorists” cliche the minute they learned it was a Muslim Jihadist, not the white American, like they hoped…
Remember Hillary (who this writer is akin) argued that Nixon should not even be allowed legal council. I wonder how your genius lawyer would opine on that bit if legal fairness???
An excellent post by Ms. Lazenby. I hope Senator Graham (who claims to be a lawyer) reads it.
So is Sweet Nancy planning to invade Hisanustan? Perhaps a quick punch into Colonovia, or maybe a purple headed drone strike right down the throat of Grahamslavakia.
There is no suspension of Miranda. It just doesn’t magically go away.
So is Sweet Nancy planning to invade Hisanustan? Perhaps a quick punch into Colonovia, or maybe a purple headed drone strike right down the throat of Grahamslavakia.
There is no suspension of Miranda. It just doesn’t magically go away.
This “essay” fails on many levels….
First of all it is too long and it is arcane. The writer tortures us in attempting to show how she can find nuances in the law (as least how she sees the law)..The truth is: the writer is really just trying to convince you of her “intellect.”
In a FAIR court, she’d be laughed out of the door. That said: In an Obama-Holder-Ginsberg court, she’d be ordained as a high priestess of judicial dogma.
The bottom line: this is just another leftwing diatribe to circumvent simple JUSTICE. This writer places the imagined rights of the guilty on top of the corpse of an eight-year-old boy and other slain Americans.
In the bio info. section, it states the writer is a “mother.” For a mother to be so callous that liberal politics, and her hatred for America is placed before simple justice, is not only sad, but an indication of how lost we have become.
Obviously, all that matters for the left is proving that they deserve their power and positions as elites.
Essay envy huh? Kinda like your penis envy except you may actually have an essay.
I see the FITS writer who uses the Big T moniker figured out too many of us are onto her, and she’s trying again. The writer’s reliance on asserting emotional personal opinion supported with nothing but mudslinging shallow attacks of labels and rhetoric, in lieu of reasoned analysis and real facts, reeks of typical FITS two bit posts. BTW, to all who missed it….Big T moniker is likely used mostly by a woman. Remember all that to do between BigT and regular poster JimLewis? I don’t know any Secure. Hetero. Males who would bow up and bluster about ‘slapping the piss’ out of another male. Responding to FITS ‘trolling for posts’ is like killing a mosquito with a cannon. Waste of resources, and who cares?
Girlie, trolling for posts with schoolyard name calling evidences FITS as a shallow media whore. Why don’t you post responses with something other than schoolyard name calling. Ooops, you write for FITS. Never mind.
Wait, you think BigT writes FOR FITS? I thought he/she was just an anonymous – and unintelligent – commenter.
I don’t know for sure, but the pattern sure seems to ‘FIT’. Even bigotry has a certain ‘depth’ that comes with experience and age. This poster lacks all depth that would go with poster’s alleged identity – an older male with children. In addition, if a reader suspends emotional reaction at the posts, one can notice every once in a while (I guess when the primary is on break or whatever) the sentence structure and cadence is vastly different. There’s lots of signs…consistently similar first posts, using other readers opinions and phrases, and here’s an article that overuses ….—- just like Big T. Both of these monikers – Tango and BigT – use the same approach to elicit emotional responses from readers by bashing.
https://3c06aba1-bb5b-4989-bcf9-62da466d33bc.cc04.conves.io/2013/04/10/kana-rahman-the-rest-of-the-story/
You are close to hitting the mark. Being professionally curious about why BigT switched to GrandTango, I researched “tango” to see what meaning it has to him/her, and posted it under the ambulance article.
This bit was the most relevant:
” tango uses several forms of movement including dynamic balance, turning, initiation of movement, moving at a variety of speeds and walking backward. It has also been suggested that tango makes people feel more relaxed, sexier, and less depressed, and to increase testosterone levels.”
But what does this really mean to us, (since I believe there are at least three posters using ‘BigT’ ) ?
I saw the response under Ambulance article. I don’t infer, so I won’t speculate on what you might be wanting to imply with this reference. Spill the beans, don’t make us guess your implication. It’s got to be interesting, it relates to sex.
Would you go if you were invited?
Dear dear, I can’t kiss and tell! It wouldn’t be secret any more! Nursie…:D
Can you two girls get back on the main story PLEAZE? This is what happens every time Momma, Grandma Henrietta, and my twin cousinss Maybelle and Lulubelle get together. The gibble gabble goes round and round from one thing to another and we guys never hear an entire story from the beginning to the end. And that is if there even is an end! You women never understand that is what sends us men to drinking!
As a progressive, I say cut his nuts off and tie a homemade bomb to his shoulders and activate it. Worthless piece of protoplasm.
There is no need for a bomb – just give him to me. I know how to deal with him.
As a progressive, I say cut his nuts off and tie a homemade bomb to his shoulders and activate it. Worthless piece of protoplasm.
There is no need for a bomb – just give him to me. I know how to deal with him.
So much fail in this post. The language you quote from the NDAA (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” ) merely preserves the status quo on US citizens. To determine if a proposed treatment of a citizen is illegal, the NDAA will be as helpful as this article. To make that determination would rather require analysis of preexisting authorities you do not even cite. And under Quirin and even Hamdi, it is legal to designate US citizens as unlawful combatants for at least some duration of time.
Then the quote “Some had urged Obama to declare the 19-year-old an ‘enemy combatant’ and turn him over to the military, wherein his constitutional rights as an American would be suspended.” Nothing is being suspended by treating him as an unlawful combatant, which has absolutely nothing to do with any criminal trial. Miranda, and the right against self-incrimination upon which it is based, applies only to the use of information/evidence in a criminal trial. The enemy combatant discussion relates to interrogating him for national security purposes, not to gather evidence for a trial. Any evidence garnered from this interrogation would absolutely be inadmissible at a criminal trial. The only way they could even try to admit such evidence is under the public harm exception to Miranda (which I believe does not apply and should not have been raised), which is a completely separate issue from his status as an enemy combatant.
So much fails in this comment.
The NDAA allows the administration to treat certain suspects as “enemy combatants.” The only reason to label someone an “enemy combatant” is to legally hold someone without trial (or possibly try them in military courts) and without even the rights guaranteed to prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. The cited section makes clear that if you label a US citizen an “enemy combatant” he or she still has rights under the Constitution – including the right against self-incrimination and to not be tried in a military tribunal – and the NDAA does not apply.
You don’t need to label someone as an “enemy combatant” to violate their constitutional rights. The rights of US citizens are violated every day. The labeling simply gives the authorities the legal right to violate someone’s constitutional rights. As a US citizen, you and I have the right to remain silent. We also can’t be subjected to “enhanced interrogation tactics” after we invoke our right to remain silent. The same can’t be said of “enemy combatants.”
I believe the public safety exception was properly applied here. He was questioned at length WITHOUT being given any Miranda warning to determine whether there was a public threat. Since there was none, the judge decided to read the suspect his rights as a US citizen. I don’t understand what is so evil about that. You’d want the same if you were ever accused of a crime.
Are you honestly claiming a provision that says it does not change existing law as to person x somehow imposes criteria as to how you treat person x? The NDAA provides for indefinite detention of enemy combatants but carves out citizens to avoid running afoul of hamdi (no indefinite detention of citizens).
There are plenty of reasons to treat someone as an enemy combatant that have nothing to do at all with whether they will later be tried. The obvious one here is to question him about terrorist connections without telling him he can end the interview or that he can have a lawyer there. As long as you are prepared to prosecute later without any intel you get, the 5 th amendment has been completely followed.
Yes to answer your first question. The NDAA sets forth how to define unlawful combatants and clearly excepted US citizens.
You can violate the 5 th amendment all you want just don’t use the evidence. I think we are in agreement on the initial questioning.
NDAA provides for indefinite detention of non-citizen enemy combatants. It does not exclude citizens from being EC, as the above language makes pretty clear by sYing it does not change existing law. Citizens can be EC under authority back to WWII. They cannot be indefinitely detained, though, under hamdi.
Ex parte Quirin, (the WWII case to which you must be referring) held that he Court will not set aside acts ordered by the President concerning acts of war, as that power is invested to the President under the Constitution. In that case, Congress passed the Articles of War act which created the military tribunal.
Did I miss a Congressional declaration of war here? Did I miss where the President was suspending Habeas Corpus here? The President has stated that according to US law, it is against the law to try American citizens in military commissions. If you really think that those calling for Tsarnaev to be labeled an enemy combatant and turned over to the military for interrogation would then actively seek to have him turned back over to the civilian authorities for trial, I marvel at your naivete.
Hamdi was in the field of battle. Tsarnaev was not.
You made a categorical statement that under the NDAA citizens could not be declared enemy combatants. That is false. Bush has erected (and Obama has largely left intact) a legal framework for treating al queda affiliates as engaging in acts of war against the US. If you want to argue that this is flawed, I frankly don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. But that argument would apply to a Saudi citizen just as strongly as a US citizen engaging in terrorism on US soil. The status as a citizen is meaningful as to how long they can detain them and whether they can be tried before a military commission (Quirin said yes, Hamdi says no), but it does not categorically prevent them from being treated as an EC.
The spies in Quirin were on US soil acting as spies/saboteurs. Were they in the field of battle?
Your conspiracy theorizing is cute. I suppose 9/11 truthers consider most of us to be naive as well. But I am fairly confident that Obama would comply with Hamdi and not try to prosecute him before a military commission (or try to summarily execute him for that matter, since once you are ignoring legal constraints why not go all out, right?).
“You don’t need to label someone as an “enemy combatant” to violate their constitutional rights”
This is a tautology, and an irrelevant one at that. The question is whether labeling him an enemy combatant violates his constitutional rights. The cases I cited clearly indicate that it does not.
Your last paragraph is irreconcilable from your early concern over violating civil liberties. The exception was meant for heat of the moment questions to protect lives (where is the bomb?), not to give law enforcement a leisurely opportunity to question and still leave the door open to try to use your answers against you. That is the ral threat to civil liberties here.
Ah. You’re a Charleston Law student, “CL.” Perhaps a grad, even. That explains it. This sounds like a bad law school argument.
You make some valid points… Oh wait you said nothing at all. But thanks for sharing.
No problem. You’re points are legally invalid.
You said: “The only way they could even try to admit such evidence is under the
public harm exception to Miranda (which I believe does not apply and
should not have been raised)”
You are aware that the public safety exception was used in this instance, right?
So, 1L or 3L?
“You are aware that the public safety exception was used in this instance, right?”
Since I said I thought they should not have relied upon it, I think it should be fairly clear to any reasonably intelligent person that I am aware of that. But since you seem to be struggling with it, the answer is yes and I think that is the greatest threat to civil liberties raised by the Boston example (as I have also noted).
The problem is that exceptions to Miranda have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is an enemy combatant. Nothing. As in zero. The exception could apply to any criminal. Look at the Richard Allen Davis case as an example of the application in a normal criminal case and as an example of the potential for abuse (there was a substantial lag between his crime and the questioning/confession). The public harm exception has nothing to do with national security or terrorism. So the concerns being raised in this article about some supposed interplay between his hypothetical enemy combatant status and any subsequent criminal proceeding are simply ignorant of the two separate issues presented.
As to your question, I have been practicing longer than the Charleston law school has been in existence. I will be happy to run down my law school credentials if you want or try to dig up my LSAT scores if you would like to compare, but it seems irrelevant to anything being argued in this thread.
Hmmm…. The Clardy Law Firm advertises on this site, “CL.” So, which one are you, Clardy or Hartman? I actually know David Hartman from a while back.
Your one attempt at an actual argument was a dismal failure, so I guess I should not be surprised that you reverted to snark. Best to leave the legal arguments to the professionals. Or at least those with basic reading comprehension skills.
Not a tautology. Please look up that term. I hope you aren’t a lawyer.
The main concern is labeling him as an enemy combatant which is clearly illegal.
You said you can violate one’s rights which is self-evidently true yet meaningless to the point at issue. There may even be a term for that in formal rhetoric…
Should have typed out “violate one’s Rights without labeling them an enemy combatant”
Yes. UL’s point was that government officials – police, prosecutors – do illegally violate people’s rights all the time. That’s why they hire lawyers – to hep them uphold those rights in a court of law. Labeling someone an “enemy combatant” makes the violation of that person’s constitutional rights legal. Lazenby’s point is that it is illegal to do that to an American citizen.
So much fail in this post. The language you quote from the NDAA (“Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.” ) merely preserves the status quo on US citizens. To determine if a proposed treatment of a citizen is illegal, the NDAA will be as helpful as this article. To make that determination would rather require analysis of preexisting authorities you do not even cite. And under Quirin and even Hamdi, it is legal to designate US citizens as unlawful combatants for at least some duration of time.
Then the quote “Some had urged Obama to declare the 19-year-old an ‘enemy combatant’ and turn him over to the military, wherein his constitutional rights as an American would be suspended.” Nothing is being suspended by treating him as an unlawful combatant, which has absolutely nothing to do with any criminal trial. Miranda, and the right against self-incrimination upon which it is based, applies only to the use of information/evidence in a criminal trial. The enemy combatant discussion relates to interrogating him for national security purposes, not to gather evidence for a trial. Any evidence garnered from this interrogation would absolutely be inadmissible at a criminal trial. The only way they could even try to admit such evidence is under the public harm exception to Miranda (which I believe does not apply and should not have been raised), which is a completely separate issue from his status as an enemy combatant.
So much fails in this comment.
The NDAA allows the administration to treat certain suspects as “enemy combatants.” The only reason to label someone an “enemy combatant” is to legally hold someone without trial (or possibly try them in military courts) and without even the rights guaranteed to prisoners of war under the Geneva Convention. The cited section makes clear that if you label a US citizen an “enemy combatant” he or she still has rights under the Constitution – including the right against self-incrimination and to not be tried in a military tribunal – and the NDAA does not apply.
You don’t need to label someone as an “enemy combatant” to violate their constitutional rights. The rights of US citizens are violated every day. The labeling simply gives the authorities the legal right to violate someone’s constitutional rights. As a US citizen, you and I have the right to remain silent. We also can’t be subjected to “enhanced interrogation tactics” after we invoke our right to remain silent. The same can’t be said of “enemy combatants.”
I believe the public safety exception was properly applied here. He was questioned at length WITHOUT being given any Miranda warning to determine whether there was a public threat. Since there was none, the judge decided to read the suspect his rights as a US citizen. I don’t understand what is so evil about that. You’d want the same if you were ever accused of a crime.
Are you honestly claiming a provision that says it does not change existing law as to person x somehow imposes criteria as to how you treat person x? The NDAA provides for indefinite detention of enemy combatants but carves out citizens to avoid running afoul of hamdi (no indefinite detention of citizens).
There are plenty of reasons to treat someone as an enemy combatant that have nothing to do at all with whether they will later be tried. The obvious one here is to question him about terrorist connections without telling him he can end the interview or that he can have a lawyer there. As long as you are prepared to prosecute later without any intel you get, the 5 th amendment has been completely followed.
Yes to answer your first question. The NDAA sets forth how to define unlawful combatants and clearly excepted US citizens.
You can violate the 5 th amendment all you want just don’t use the evidence. I think we are in agreement on the initial questioning.
NDAA provides for indefinite detention of non-citizen enemy combatants. It does not exclude citizens from being EC, as the above language makes pretty clear by sYing it does not change existing law. Citizens can be EC under authority back to WWII. They cannot be indefinitely detained, though, under hamdi.
Ex parte Quirin, (the WWII case to which you must be referring) held that he Court will not set aside acts ordered by the President concerning acts of war, as that power is invested to the President under the Constitution. In that case, Congress passed the Articles of War act which created the military tribunal.
Did I miss a Congressional declaration of war here? Did I miss where the President was suspending Habeas Corpus here? The President has stated that according to US law, it is against the law to try American citizens in military commissions. If you really think that those calling for Tsarnaev to be labeled an enemy combatant and turned over to the military for interrogation would then actively seek to have him turned back over to the civilian authorities for trial, I marvel at your naivete.
Hamdi was in the field of battle. Tsarnaev was not.
You made a categorical statement that under the NDAA citizens could not be declared enemy combatants. That is false. Bush has erected (and Obama has largely left intact) a legal framework for treating al queda affiliates as engaging in acts of war against the US. If you want to argue that this is flawed, I frankly don’t have a strong opinion on the matter. But that argument would apply to a Saudi citizen just as strongly as a US citizen engaging in terrorism on US soil. The status as a citizen is meaningful as to how long they can detain them and whether they can be tried before a military commission (Quirin said yes, Hamdi says no), but it does not categorically prevent them from being treated as an EC.
The spies in Quirin were on US soil acting as spies/saboteurs. Were they in the field of battle?
Your conspiracy theorizing is cute. I suppose 9/11 truthers consider most of us to be naive as well. But I am fairly confident that Obama would comply with the charters for the commissions (Bush excluded citizens from the original order authorizing the commissions) and not try to prosecute him before a military commission (or try to summarily execute him for that matter, since once you are ignoring legal constraints why not go all out, right?).
“You don’t need to label someone as an “enemy combatant” to violate their constitutional rights”
This is a tautology, and an irrelevant one at that. The question is whether labeling him an enemy combatant violates his constitutional rights. The cases I cited clearly indicate that it does not.
Your last paragraph is irreconcilable from your early concern over violating civil liberties. The exception was meant for heat of the moment questions to protect lives (where is the bomb?), not to give law enforcement a leisurely opportunity to question and still leave the door open to try to use your answers against you. That is the ral threat to civil liberties here.
Ah. You’re a Charleston Law student, “CL.” Perhaps a grad, even. That explains it. This sounds like a bad law school argument.
You make some valid points… Oh wait you said nothing at all. But thanks for sharing.
No problem. You’re points are legally invalid.
You said: “The only way they could even try to admit such evidence is under the
public harm exception to Miranda (which I believe does not apply and
should not have been raised)”
You are aware that the public safety exception was used in this instance, right?
So, 1L or 3L?
“You are aware that the public safety exception was used in this instance, right?”
Since I said I thought they should not have relied upon it, I think it should be fairly clear to any reasonably intelligent person that I am aware of that. But since you seem to be struggling with it, the answer is yes and I think that is the greatest threat to civil liberties raised by the Boston example (as I have also noted).
The problem is that exceptions to Miranda have absolutely nothing to do with whether someone is an enemy combatant. Nothing. As in zero. The exception could apply to any criminal. Look at the Richard Allen Davis case as an example of the application in a normal criminal case and as an example of the potential for abuse (there was a substantial lag between his crime and the questioning/confession). The public harm exception has nothing to do with national security or terrorism. So the concerns being raised in this article about some supposed interplay between his hypothetical enemy combatant status and any subsequent criminal proceeding are simply ignorant of the two separate issues presented.
As to your question, I have been practicing longer than the Charleston law school has been in existence. I will be happy to run down my law school credentials if you want or try to dig up my LSAT scores if you would like to compare, but it seems irrelevant to anything being argued in this thread.
Hmmm…. The Clardy Law Firm advertises on this site, “CL.” So, which one are you, Clardy or Hartman? I actually know David Hartman from a while back.
Your one attempt at an actual argument was a dismal failure, so I guess I should not be surprised that you reverted to snark. Best to leave the legal arguments to the professionals. Or at least those with basic reading comprehension skills.
Not a tautology. Please look up that term. I hope you aren’t a lawyer.
The main concern is labeling him as an enemy combatant which is clearly illegal.
You said you can violate one’s rights which is self-evidently true yet meaningless to the point at issue. There may even be a term for that in formal rhetoric…
Should have typed out “violate one’s Rights without labeling them an enemy combatant”
Yes. UL’s point was that government officials – police, prosecutors – do illegally violate people’s rights all the time. That’s why they hire lawyers – to hep them uphold those rights in a court of law. Labeling someone an “enemy combatant” makes the violation of that person’s constitutional rights legal. Lazenby’s point is that it is illegal to do that to an American citizen.
Even though he is an American citizen Dzohkar could have been held and questioned as as eney combatant just like American citizens Jose Padill and Yasar Hamdi were. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this point.
Then after they finished questioning him, they could have turned Dzohkar over to the federal district court where young Dzohkar would have been read his Miranda rights, given a lawyer, etc.
Not that they need any information, but anything obtained from his time as an enemy combatant could NOT be used in his trial in federal district court.
Instead, the liberterians like Rand Pauld are now cheering the ACLU, Eric Holder, and the Obama Justice Department and telling us how “conservative” this position is.
Why would any conservative “Stand with Rand” when it is the same as “Standing with Obama/ACLU/Holder?”
Bush 2 designated Padilla an enemy combatant and argued that he was not entitled to a trial in civilian court, then had him transferred to a military prison. He was held for three and a half years as an enemy combatant. He was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, and it was only after pressure from civil liberties groups that his case was moved to a civilian court. I’d say that being held in a military prison for three and a half years violates a person’s Sixth Amendment “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.”
From Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: ““Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was capture in a zone of active
combat in a foreign theater of conflict, the submitted declaration is a
sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the Commander in Chief has
constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the war powers entrusted to
him by the United States Constitution.” Sure, Hamdi was also an American citizen, but he was captured on foreign soil in the midst of active combat. That’s just not analogous to the Boston situation. McVeigh is a better analogy, in my opinion.
The Supreme Court never weighed in Padilla’s “enemy combatant” status. The feds charged him in civilian court before the Supremes could hear the appeal.
“Then after they finished questioning him, they could have turned Dzohkar
over to the federal district court where young Dzohkar would have been
read his Miranda rights, given a lawyer, etc.”
As I replied to “CL,” if you really think that those calling for Tsarnaev to be labeled an enemy combatant and turned over to the military for interrogation would then actively seek to have him turned back over to the civilian authorities for trial, I marvel at your naivete.
Even though he is an American citizen Dzohkar could have been held and questioned as as eney combatant just like American citizens Jose Padill and Yasar Hamdi were. The Supreme Court has already ruled on this point.
Then after they finished questioning him, they could have turned Dzohkar over to the federal district court where young Dzohkar would have been read his Miranda rights, given a lawyer, etc.
Not that they need any information, but anything obtained from his time as an enemy combatant could NOT be used in his trial in federal district court.
Instead, the liberterians like Rand Pauld are now cheering the ACLU, Eric Holder, and the Obama Justice Department and telling us how “conservative” this position is.
Why would any conservative “Stand with Rand” when it is the same as “Standing with Obama/ACLU/Holder?”
Bush 2 designated Padilla an enemy combatant and argued that he was not entitled to a trial in civilian court, then had him transferred to a military prison. He was held for three and a half years as an enemy combatant. He was subjected to enhanced interrogation techniques, and it was only after pressure from civil liberties groups that his case was moved to a civilian court. I’d say that being held in a military prison for three and a half years violates a person’s Sixth Amendment “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state
and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district
shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the
witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining
witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his
defense.”
From Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: ““Because it is undisputed that Hamdi was capture in a zone of active
combat in a foreign theater of conflict, the submitted declaration is a
sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the Commander in Chief has
constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the war powers entrusted to
him by the United States Constitution.” Sure, Hamdi was also an American citizen, but he was captured on foreign soil in the midst of active combat. That’s just not analogous to the Boston situation. McVeigh is a better analogy, in my opinion.
The Supreme Court never weighed in Padilla’s “enemy combatant” status. The feds charged him in civilian court before the Supremes could hear the appeal.
“Then after they finished questioning him, they could have turned Dzohkar
over to the federal district court where young Dzohkar would have been
read his Miranda rights, given a lawyer, etc.”
As I replied to “CL,” if you really think that those calling for Tsarnaev to be labeled an enemy combatant and turned over to the military for interrogation would then actively seek to have him turned back over to the civilian authorities for trial, I marvel at your naivete.
Meanwhile: how many lies has Janet Napolitano (Obama) already been caught in, trying to cover up all the mistakes Obama and Co. made..while assuring the Child-Killers got their RIGHTS????
It’s real nice to ride high as a liberal right now. You are trying to excuse child murderers by Muslim terrorists on American soil because you think it makes you “cool” and different…
Bigger question: when sentiment turns..and even the ignorant figure out what Obama and Lizenby are doing to our justice system…will they stand up for the America-Haters they are…or will they cower, and lie? (which is usually the case)…
Big T, you could not discern a lie if your life depended on it. You are a pathological liar as you have shown over and over on this site. Everything that comes out of your mouth is a lie.
Disagreeing w/ leftwing political propaganda does NOT constitute a lie.
I have NEVER lied on here. I present facts, that many of you dispute, or disagree with, but I don’t lie.
It is of NO benefit to me to not tell the truth.
It’s why most of the counter-posts to mine are usually name-calling, but nothing material, or of substance.
You frequently present dis-proven conspiracy theories as fact, even after you and/or the originators know that they have been dis-proven. That’s lying, or at the very least, spreading lies.
I’ve called him out on several lies, which he keeps repeatng…I think the idiot is just delusional.
Name one. Let’s go.
“Obama provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world…Keystone Pipeline’s oil would go to us…said from Obama’s From Dreams of My Father : “I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race.”
Less than 1 billion went to green energy, Keystone oil would be exported, and that quote wasn’t in Obama’s book.
Well, that’s three right off the bat.
Easy peasy: The stimulus provided some $90 billion in financing for a wide array of clean energy programs. Here’s the breakdown:
There’s $29 billion for improving energy efficiency, including home
retrofits; $21 billion in incentives for renewable generation, such as
solar and wind; $10 billion for modernizing the electric grid; $6
billion to promote advanced vehicles and a domestic battery industry;
$18 billion for high-speed rail and other trains; $3 billion for
research into carbon capture for coal plants; $3 billion for job
training; and $3 billion for clean manufacturing tax credits.
Yes, a lot went to infrastructure, but BigT was claiming Solyndra, I added the “green world”. I’ll go back and quote his original post if it would please you.
Would you like to tackle the other two?
You are correct about the quote, it is not in Dreams From My Father, but in this 2007 review of the book:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070317192834/http://www.amconmag.com/2007/2007_03_12/feature.html
“In reality, Obama provides a disturbing test of the best-case scenario of whether America can indeed move beyond race. He inherited his father’s penetrating intelligence; was raised mostly by his loving liberal white grandparents in multiracial, laid-back Hawaii, where America’s normal race rules never applied; and received a superb private school education. And yet, at least through age 33 when he wrote Dreams from My Father, he found solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against his mother’s race.”
Steve Sailor editorlalizing…
I’ve called him out on several lies, which he keeps repeatng…I think the idiot is just delusional.
Ms. Lazenby, referencing FITS posts doesn’t impute credibility, no matter how frequently you cite them, and your own credibility for thoughtful presentation of issues is diminished. I hope this isn’t a trend for your otherwise decently referenced pieces.
Uh – the two “FITS posts” she referenced were written by her, so…
Appreciate correction, I retract. Ms. Lazenby’s posts are exempt.
Ms. Lazenby, referencing FITS posts doesn’t impute credibility, no matter how frequently you cite them, and your own credibility for thoughtful presentation of issues is diminished. I hope this isn’t a trend for your otherwise decently referenced pieces.
Edit: Correction. Referencing your own prior posts (or any other guest writer with decent referencing and depth) doesn’t apply.
Uh – the two “FITS posts” she referenced were written by her, so…
Appreciate correction, I retract when the posts are Ms. Lazenby’s – there might be other guest writers of decently referenced thoughtful posts but I don’t recollect.
Do you not even question his denial of any outside involvement? He said it, so it must be true? Not simply a legal opinion or interpretation, as you are not a lawyer and that’s ok, but this essay needs editing, the additional mostly dismissive and/or sympathetic comments in this piece ruin it. Lazyb, how much do you even know about the 1993 WTC attack, 9/11, the global terror networks supporting jihad against? Have you not read the damn news in the past two weeks? Mocking the fight against global jihad, no mention of Russia security pegging Speedbump as an Islamic terrorist, no mention of the CIA, FBI, or the mother. You conveniently and disingenuously omit what you don’t like or aren’t intellectually honest enough to deal with.
Do you not even question his denial of any outside involvement? He said it, so it must be true? Not simply a legal opinion or interpretation, as you are not a lawyer and that’s ok, but this essay needs editing, the additional mostly dismissive and/or sympathetic comments in this piece ruin it. Lazyb, how much do you even know about the 1993 WTC attack, 9/11, the global terror networks supporting jihad against? Have you not read the damn news in the past two weeks? Mocking the fight against global jihad, no mention of Russia security pegging Speedbump as an Islamic terrorist, no mention of the CIA, FBI, or the mother. You conveniently and disingenuously omit what you don’t like or aren’t intellectually honest enough to deal with.
These leftists will break their necks to pontificate in demanding free condoms because with their dangerous frequency of activity they can’t afford to keep themselves “protected.”
And they will bolt to the front to defend child-killers, as long as their are Muslim, and hate America as the left does.
But they are MUTE when I beg them to stand up w/ their Butcher Baby Killing Abortionist…
It is TRULY SICKENING that any WOMAN, much less a MOTHER, could be silent as a leftwing Monster represents her pro-abortion, liberal stance on baby-killing…
I will leave the legal wrangling and discussion of the flaws in her logic to the previous posters. I am out of energy on this topic already- the hand-wringing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth on both sides is enough to wear anybody out. I would like to throw just one minor suggestion from my admittedly very narrow area of expertise- Lazenby’s statement that “reading an online al-Qaeda magazine doesn’t make one part of the organization” is not only an over-simplification, but it’s mostly incorrect (or at least misleading). Even in its early heyday back when al Qaeda’s finances and command structure were a bit more centralized, AQ was intentionally designed as an amorphous organization with no strict rules for entry or “membership.”
Of course “just reading” any of their publications doesn’t make one a member. I’ve read just about everything they’ve published since 9-11 (I used to chase them for a living); that doesn’t make me an AQ member. However, if I “just read” some of their material and answer their repeated requests to “join us by conducting Jihad when and where you are,” then I am as much a part of al Qaeda as some clown training in one of their camps in Africa or Pak. That’s what Nidal Hasan did, and I bet that’s what happened (within a larger process of radicalization) with our Boston Buttheads.
Seems like a minor distinction to some, perhaps, but I just wanted to throw it in without getting into the combatant thing.
So what are you saying?
Just what I said – she made an inaccurate statement and I wanted to clean it up a bit. That’s all…
I don’t think it is a minor distinction, and I’m glad you pointed this out. Had the FBI taken Said Nosair and the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane seriously, they might have raided the Al Faruq mosque and stopped the 93 WTC attack IF they had bothered to look at the boxes of evidence they took as part of the criminal investigation. Look how that was bungled. But look at our foreign policy: Ayman Al-Zawahiri IS muslim brotherhood, and Al Qaeda is an MB subsidiary in the person of Zawahiri, and yet we are assisting the installation of Muslim Brotherhood governments with military, political, diplomatic, and economic support in country after country. There is no nuance there; the US government is assisting Al Qaeda by assisting the MB in Egypt, Libya (also used NATO!), and now it appears that Syria is the next MB target, what happens when there are five, six, seven contiguous MB governments in place across the muslim world, what then. So Nidal Hasan didn’t specifically sit across from Zawahiri or Awlaki (actually he did meet with Awlaki) so he isn’t part of a larger conspiracy, a larger group? That is the whole point of Al Qaeda: spread the islamic
supremacist ideology, and individual actors will rally to be martyrs. The
failure to understand that is going to get more people killed.
Two down votes, no comments. Care to tell me why? What do you disagree with? Do tell.
Most folks have no background in regard to the Sayyid Nosair affair (interestingly enough he was a naturalized US citizen, although that never became an issue). You’re also on point with the brotherhood comments as well. The MB is an Islamist organization, although many pols are trying their best to massage reality into a less prickly vision of exactly who they are. Just two years ago, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper actually described them as a “largely secular” group. Clueless…
Lazenby, you should study the various issues surrounding Omar Abdul-Rahman, his relationship with Lynn Stewart, the defense of Nosair provided by William Kuntsler, naturalized citizen and Army member Ali A. Mohamed who was an operative for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the various Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as ISNA, MAS, MSA, CAIR, ICNA. The role of the student visa program, perm res, asylum, and how it provided cover for al-Awlaki, and for example the Somalia/U.S. terrorist pipeline, diplomatic immunity cover, for example Sudan terrorist ring, Clement Rodney Hampton-El, Jammat Al-Fuqra–who has a camp in York County, SC. The strategy of the MB outlined in ‘An Explanatory Memorandum, On the General Strategic Goal for the Muslim Brotherhood In North America’ instructing jihadis to emigrate and gain citizenship specifically to exploit the constitution and the judicial system, Ali A. Mohamed testimony: “In 1997, he told the F.B.I. about networks of terrorists, known as ”sleepers,” who lie low for years but do not need to be told what to do. ”Mohamed implied that trained terrorists don’t order their people to blow things up,” an F.B.I. document said. ”Terrorists are trained and then they act.”
I will leave the legal wrangling and discussion of the flaws in her logic to the previous posters. I am out of energy on this topic already- the hand-wringing, wailing, and gnashing of teeth on both sides is enough to wear anybody out. I would like to throw just one minor suggestion from my admittedly very narrow area of expertise- Lazenby’s statement that “reading an online al-Qaeda magazine doesn’t make one part of the organization” is not only an over-simplification, but it’s mostly incorrect (or at least misleading). Even in its early heyday back when al Qaeda’s finances and command structure were a bit more centralized, AQ was intentionally designed as an amorphous organization with no strict rules for entry or “membership.”
Of course “just reading” any of their publications doesn’t make one a member. I’ve read just about everything they’ve published since 9-11 (I used to chase them for a living); that doesn’t make me an AQ member. However, if I “just read” some of their material and answer their repeated requests to “join us by conducting Jihad when and where you are,” then I am as much a part of al Qaeda as some clown training in one of their camps in Africa or Pak. That’s what Nidal Hasan did, and I bet that’s what happened (within a larger process of radicalization) with our Boston Buttheads.
Seems like a minor distinction to some, perhaps, but I just wanted to throw it in without getting into the combatant thing.
So what are you saying?
Just what I said – she made an inaccurate statement and I wanted to clean it up a bit. That’s all…
I don’t think it is a minor distinction, and I’m glad you pointed this out. Had the FBI taken Said Nosair and the assassination of Rabbi Meir Kahane seriously, they might have raided the Al Faruq mosque and stopped the 93 WTC attack IF they had bothered to look at the boxes of evidence they took as part of the criminal investigation. Look how that was bungled. But look at our foreign policy: Ayman Al-Zawahiri IS muslim brotherhood, and Al Qaeda is an MB subsidiary in the person of Zawahiri, and yet we are assisting the installation of Muslim Brotherhood governments with military, political, diplomatic, and economic support in country after country. There is no nuance there; the US government is assisting Al Qaeda by assisting the MB in Egypt, Libya (also used NATO!), and now it appears that Syria is the next MB target, what happens when there are five, six, seven contiguous MB governments in place across the muslim world, what then. So Nidal Hasan didn’t specifically sit across from Zawahiri or Awlaki (actually he did meet with Awlaki) so he isn’t part of a larger conspiracy, a larger group? That is the whole point of Al Qaeda: spread the islamic
supremacist ideology, and individual actors will rally to be martyrs. The
failure to understand that is going to get more people killed.
Two down votes, no comments. Care to tell me why? What do you disagree with? Do tell.
Most folks have no background in regard to the Sayyid Nosair affair (interestingly enough he was a naturalized US citizen, although that never became an issue). You’re also on point with the brotherhood comments as well. The MB is an Islamist organization, although many pols are trying their best to massage reality into a less prickly vision of exactly who they are. Just two years ago, US Director of National Intelligence James Clapper actually described them as a “largely secular” group. Clueless…
Lazenby, you should study the various issues surrounding Omar Abdul-Rahman, his relationship with Lynn Stewart, the defense of Nosair provided by William Kuntsler, naturalized citizen and Army member Ali A. Mohamed who was an operative for Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the various Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as ISNA, MAS, MSA, CAIR, ICNA. The role of the student visa program, perm res, asylum, and how it provided cover for al-Awlaki, and for example the Somalia/U.S. terrorist pipeline, diplomatic immunity cover, for example Sudan terrorist ring, Clement Rodney Hampton-El, Jammat Al-Fuqra–who has a camp in York County, SC. The strategy of the MB outlined in ‘An Explanatory Memorandum, On the General Strategic Goal for the Muslim Brotherhood In North America’ instructing jihadis to emigrate and gain citizenship specifically to exploit the constitution and the judicial system, Ali A. Mohamed testimony: “In 1997, he told the F.B.I. about networks of terrorists, known as ”sleepers,” who lie low for years but do not need to be told what to do. ”Mohamed implied that trained terrorists don’t order their people to blow things up,” an F.B.I. document said. ”Terrorists are trained and then they act.”
Writing in WorldNetDaily today, Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman expanded on his conspiracy theory that a deadly fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, was actually a terrorist attack.
Instead of offering any evidence to substantiate his claims, he argues that the fact that the explosion at the plant was ruled an accident (and likely a result of loose regulations) is proof enough that the Obama administration is actually covering up an act of “Muslim terrorism” that was meant to kill George W. Bush, who lives in Dallas, Texas.
Dallas, of course, is approximately 77 miles north of West, but that doesn’t really matter.
See, as Klayman explains, Obama is “potentially even more dangerous than al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, the mullahs in Tehran, or any terrorist group or nation state, combined” and a “traitorous ‘Muslim in drag,’” and only Klayman himself can comprehend and expose his diabolical schemes.
And? What is your point?
Writing in WorldNetDaily today, Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman expanded on his conspiracy theory that a deadly fertilizer plant explosion in West, Texas, was actually a terrorist attack.
Instead of offering any evidence to substantiate his claims, he argues that the fact that the explosion at the plant was ruled an accident (and likely a result of loose regulations) is proof enough that the Obama administration is actually covering up an act of “Muslim terrorism” that was meant to kill George W. Bush, who lives in Dallas, Texas.
Dallas, of course, is approximately 77 miles north of West, but that doesn’t really matter.
See, as Klayman explains, Obama is “potentially even more dangerous than al-Qaida, Hamas, Hezbollah, the mullahs in Tehran, or any terrorist group or nation state, combined” and a “traitorous ‘Muslim in drag,’” and only Klayman himself can comprehend and expose his diabolical schemes.
And? What is your point?