Monday, April 22, 2013

Republican Constitutionalism

The Boston terr'ists aren't getting much love from the GOP -
Carney said that the department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder support not trying the terror suspect as an enemy combatant in addition to the entire national security team.

A number of Republicans have called on the Obama administration to declare Tsarnaev an enemy combatant and put him in military detention in order to gather intelligence from him.

““It is clear the events we have seen over the past few days in Boston were an attempt to kill American citizens and terrorize a major American city,” a group of GOP lawmakers led by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said in a statement Saturday.

“The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent,” the senators said.

Graham said Sunday that while he wants the Boston suspect held as an enemy combatant to gather intelligence, he also thinks that Tsarnaev should ultimately be moved into the federal courts for trial because he is an American citizen.

The Obama administration argues that it can gather intelligence from Tsarnaev in the federal system, and military detention is not necessary.
If there was ever any doubt that there is only one, anti-Constitutional party in the United States, this should obliterate any of those pretenses. Let us keep in mind that these are at this time merely suspects that have not been tried, let alone convicted in a court of law. To be certain, there is evidence that these are the guys, but that is exactly why we have courts of law, to ensure that the evidence is heard and that the rights of the suspects are preserved.

The nonsense continues -
Tsarnaev has not been read his Miranda rights yet, as the federal government has invoked an exemption that allows those rights to be waived temporarily when there is a threat to public safety. He remains in serious condition in a Boston hospital, according to the FBI.
I'm pretty sure that the 'public safety' exemption exists in order to permit the police to bag a suspect that poses an immediate threat to the surrounding public and prevent the suspect from getting off because the "timing" of the reading of his rights happened to trample his 'right' to wave a hand grenade at a bus full of children. The fact that it has been three days and they still haven't read him his rights (C'mon people, we're talking about informing a person that he has rights as a citizen) shows just how far down this cesspool of 'Get the bad guys' we've sunk. Further, I am personally aware of many individuals who posed absolutely zero risk to the public safety who never received so much as a phone call, let alone their rights.

I'd like to pose the following questions to Mr. Graham:
  1. Every day, gang warfare in the cities claims multiple lives. Is the standard for law enforcement now such that the brutality of an alleged crime is enough to strip you of your citizenship? If so, why is this standard not applied to present members of known foreign cartels openly operating in the United States? MS13 is one that comes to mind...
  2. Have we disposed with the notion of trial by a jury of your peers in the United States?
  3. Do you support the President's position of assassination of American citizens?
Keep in mind, it is not the veracity of the charges levied against these two that concern me. It's the process that's targeting them that could be subsequently turned on others that is the far greater threat to the American peace and safety from a malicious Federal/State tyranny.

Apparently the Wall Street Jornal agrees with the Republicans -
Which brings us to interrogating 19-year-old Dzhokhar if he recovers from his wounds. The flap over reading his Miranda rights is a largely irrelevant distraction. Under a 1984 Supreme Court decision (New York v. Quarles), police can invoke a "public-safety exception" to Miranda for a short period of time. Attorney General Eric Holder has embraced this exception as a way to show that the criminal-justice system can handle terrorists as well as the law-of-war paradigm favored by the Bush Administration. 
That's right, because the Supreme Court makes the laws... Just how long is that "short period of time"?And what about...the torture?
The important security issue isn't convicting Dzhokhar but finding out what he knows that might prevent a future attack or break up a terror network. This is where naming him an enemy combatant would be useful. Such a designation allows for extensive, long-term interrogation without a lawyer.
 This should be very simple to understand. IT.IS.NOT.THE.JOB.OF.A.SUSPECT.TO.BE."USEFUL"!
The Wall Street Journal is here arguing that they should be able to wave their hand and declare you - Without Rights. Why? So they can do "extensive, long-term interrogation without a lawyer", newspeak for torture the crap out of you so they can 'extract info'. Oh but wait, the Supreme Court says - Yah, that's OK too..
The Supreme Court has ruled that even American citizens—Dzhokhar is one—can be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. If he cooperates, the combatant designation can be revoked and he can always be transferred to the criminal-justice system for prosecution.
What a FARCE. WHAT A JOKE. "If he cooperates..." Read as - Say what we want and we'll let you go. This turns the very idea of justice on its head! They even admit as much. Just like the Patriot Act, you're ALL suspects...
Boylston Street sure looked like a battlefield on Monday, and so did Watertown on Thursday night. The artificial distinction is Mr. Paul's focus on geography. The vital distinction for public safety is between common criminals, who deserve due process protections, and enemy combatants at war with the U.S., wherever they are.
Oh the humanity. How can we ever deal with individuals who want to kill people? They need special laws becau

As for due process, the greatest danger to liberty would be to allow more such attacks that would inspire an even greater public backlash against Muslims or free speech or worse. The anti-antiterror types on the left and GOP Senators who agree that the U.S. isn't part of the battlefield are making the U.S. more vulnerable.
Demonstrably false. Democide. Look it up.

Further, the ole' 'You ain't safe unless you do what we want' is beyond cliche at this point. Seriously? That's the best you got?

No comments: