Uncategorized

Lazenby: Boston Bombing Justice

A week after Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s dramatic capture and  subsequent interrogation by federal agents (prior to being read his Miranda rights), debate is still raging about the decision made by U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration to try Tsarnaev, an American citizen, in the civilian justice system. Some had urged Obama to…

A week after Boston bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev’s dramatic capture and  subsequent interrogation by federal agents (prior to being read his Miranda rights), debate is still raging about the decision made by U.S. President Barack Obama’s administration to try Tsarnaev, an American citizen, in the civilian justice system.

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. Questions are also being raised as to whether the pre-Miranda interrogation went far enough prior to the suspect being read his rights by a federal magistrate (at which point he was formally charged with two federal crimes).

In announcing the federal government’s decision to try Tsarnaev in the American justice system, White House Spokesman Jay Carney said:

He will not be treated as an enemy combatant. We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions, and it is important to remember that since 9/11, we have used the federal court system to convict and incarcerate hundreds of terrorists. The effective use of the criminal justice system has resulted in the interrogation, conviction, and detention of both U.S. citizens and non-citizens for acts of terrorism committed inside the United States and around the world.

The system has repeatedly proven that it can successfully handle the threat we continue to face. There are a number of examples of this, high profile examples: the Times Square Bomber, Faisal Shahzad, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison; Abdul Muttalib, the so-called ‘underwear bomber,’ was sentenced to life in prison; Warsame, a Somalian national and member of al-Shabab and has close associations with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, is now currently in this system and we have acquired valuable intelligence from him through the process that is allowed in the system. So this is absolutely the right way to go and the appropriate way to go. When it comes to United States citizens, it is against the law to try them in military commissions.

Many politicians, most notably U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, have questioned this decision – insisting that Tsarnaev, an American citizen, should have been designated an enemy combatant for the purposes of gathering intelligence, despite the fact that this is explicitly illegal under the 2012 reauthorization of the NDAA.

The relevant section reads:

Subtitle D – Counterterrorism

Sec. 1021 -AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORITY OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES TO DETAIN COVERED PERSONS PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF MILITARY FORCE.

(e) Authorities- 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.

In an interview on CNN last week Graham said, “The reason I’ve been wanting a national security interrogation and not a criminal law interrogation is to have time with this second suspect (Dzhokhar Tsarnaev) to ask him questions about what they know, terrorist organizations involved, other people that may be involved.  I’m not trying to solve a crime. I’m trying to enhance our security and prevent a future attack.”

During a reported sixteen hours of pre-Miranda questioning while laying in his hospital bed, Tsarnaev told federal investigators (mostly in writing due to a neck injury he sustained) that he and his brother were not involved with any overseas terrorists or terror organizations, that they came up with Boston Marathon bombing plan on their own, that they were motivated by religious fervor and resentment about the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that they got instructions on how to make the pressure cooker bombs they used from the internet, specifically from the online magazine “Inspire,” an al-Qaeda publication.

Apparently, this is not the information Sen. Graham wanted to hear – but authorities used every tool available under the American civilian system of justice – even suspending the suspect’s Miranda rights for reasons of public safety – to get it.

Thus far, there has been no indication that the brothers were part of any organization with which we are at war (currently, that’s al-Qaeda and the Taliban – reading an online al-Qaeda magazine doesn’t make one part of the organization). In the CNN interview, Graham cited statements made by Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s ex-brother-in-law and the men’s uncle about a mysterious Armenian man identified only as “Misha” who may have influenced Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s increasingly radical beliefs as a reason to label Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant (again, this would be illegal under current U.S. law).

But Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead and not on trail, and “Misha,” who could be involved or not – or may simply be an easy scapegoat for understandably distressed relatives – has reportedly denied any connection to the events.

During his pre-Miranda questioning, Tsarnaev told interrogators that he and his brother planned to drive the Mercedes they carjacked in Cambridge to New York City and plant some bombs in Times Square. Given that the brothers made no attempt to flee the Boston area until their photos were released on the Thursday after the Boston attack, authorities have described their Times Square bombing plot as “undeveloped” and “aspirational at most,” leading us to believe that is was drawn up in haste, perhaps while they were on the run.

This ill-conceived plot by two fugitives on the run was foiled when they realized there wasn’t enough gas in the car they had just stolen to get to New York.

Now that Tsarnaev has been Mirandized and provided with a federal public defender, he has reportedly stopped answering questions on the advice of his attorney. Given the charges and the affidavit supporting them, the feds appear to many legal observers to have enough evidence to convict Tsarnaev without using any of his statements or any further answers he may give. But Sen. Graham, U.S. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and others are criticizing the administration’s decision to conduct the proceeding that formally charged Tsarnaev and Mirandize the suspect when they did – which is required by federal rules during a defendant’s initial appearance – out of concern that he will stop speaking to authorities.

Tsarnaev has reportedly exercised his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself on the advice of his public defender. But that same lawyer, recognizing that there is plenty of evidence against his client in the affidavit that accompanies the initial charges – which carry either life in prison or the death penalty – may advise his client that it would be in his best interest to talk in order to make a plea deal that would save his life.

Miami defense lawyer Neal Sonnett told the Associated Press that “this notion that they ‘lawyer up’ and that’s the end of getting any information is just not true.”  In fact, the same AP article reminds us that “Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab of Nigeria, convicted of trying to blow up a packed jetliner using a bomb sewn into his underwear on Christmas Day 2009, also initially answered investigators’ questions and then clammed up once he was read his rights, only to start cooperating again.”

Let us also not forget that Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh – a U.S. citizen who committed an act of domestic terrorism on American soil – was expeditiously held to account for his crimes in the civilian justice system while being afforded all the rights and protections therein, and his victims got to see him meet his end.

This current debate about how the government should handle domestic terrorism cases stems from the security state that was established by several laws after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. And while the American public is understandably emotional about what happened in Boston, I would hope we have learned from our post-9/11 mistakes. Suspending civil liberties is never the answer to domestic terrorism. We have constitutional rights and a civilian justice system for a reason. Every time we violate those rights or make an exception to those rules, the American collective experiences an erosion of liberty, and we prove ourselves no better than the totalitarian regimes we are fighting against.

These are the very rights other Americans have died – and are still dying – to defend. Let’s not give them up so easily shall we? These are indeed trying times, and the process of bringing terrorists to justice is difficult, but courage does not come from standing up for the constitution and American values when it is easy to do so – it comes from doing so when it is difficult.

Justice is not served by a public lynching – even one dressed up by politicians as a “War on Terror.” Justice is served for both the accused and the accusers – the American people and the victims of this attack – when the alleged bomber is brought to trial to answer the charges brought against him and when the victims of this horrific act of violence are permitted to face him in court.

In other words we shouldn’t cheat Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (an American citizen), the people of Boston, and all American citizens out of their fundamental right to justice in this case.

Amy Lazenby is a wife, mother of three and small business owner with her husband who splits her time between South Carolina and Georgia. She writes with a liberal world view on most issues, but enjoys exploring where the liberal and libertarian political axes intersect. Follow her on Twitter @Mrs_Laz.

Related posts

Uncategorized

Tropical Storm Nate Forms In Caribbean

FITSNews
Uncategorized

The U.S. Military Has A Laser …

FITSNews
Uncategorized

SC Farmers Would Suffer Under “Obamatrade”

FITSNews

124 comments

GrandTango April 29, 2013 at 2:49 pm

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.

Reply
lowcorider April 29, 2013 at 3:39 pm

Just like your fucking hero Adam Lanza.

Reply
GrandTango April 29, 2013 at 4:06 pm

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…

Reply
Sailor April 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm

An excellent post by Ms. Lazenby. I hope Senator Graham (who claims to be a lawyer) reads it.

Reply
GrandTango April 29, 2013 at 3:44 pm

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???

Reply
Sailor April 29, 2013 at 2:54 pm

An excellent post by Ms. Lazenby. I hope Senator Graham (who claims to be a lawyer) reads it.

Reply
lowcorider April 29, 2013 at 3:37 pm

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.

Reply
Lowcorider April 29, 2013 at 3:37 pm

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.

Reply
GrandTango April 29, 2013 at 3:39 pm

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.

Reply
lowcorider April 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm

Essay envy huh? Kinda like your penis envy except you may actually have an essay.

Reply
katlaurenscounty April 29, 2013 at 5:19 pm

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.

Reply
Right April 29, 2013 at 5:31 pm

Wait, you think BigT writes FOR FITS? I thought he/she was just an anonymous – and unintelligent – commenter.

Reply
katlaurenscounty April 29, 2013 at 5:50 pm

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://www.fitsnews.com/2013/04/10/kana-rahman-the-rest-of-the-story/

Reply
Nurse Mildred Ratched April 29, 2013 at 6:17 pm

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’ ) ?

Reply
katlaurenscounty April 29, 2013 at 6:35 pm

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.

Reply
Nurse Mildred Ratched April 29, 2013 at 6:54 pm

Would you go if you were invited?

katlaurenscounty April 29, 2013 at 6:55 pm

Dear dear, I can’t kiss and tell! It wouldn’t be secret any more! Nursie…:D

Little Rocky from Arkansas April 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm

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!

Tyrone Butternuts April 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm

As a progressive, I say cut his nuts off and tie a homemade bomb to his shoulders and activate it. Worthless piece of protoplasm.

Reply
Nurse Mildred Ratched April 29, 2013 at 6:30 pm

There is no need for a bomb – just give him to me. I know how to deal with him.

Reply
Tyrone Butternuts April 29, 2013 at 3:51 pm

As a progressive, I say cut his nuts off and tie a homemade bomb to his shoulders and activate it. Worthless piece of protoplasm.

Reply
Nurse Mildred Ratched April 29, 2013 at 6:30 pm

There is no need for a bomb – just give him to me. I know how to deal with him.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 3:57 pm

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.

Reply
Upstate Lawyer April 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm

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.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 9:09 pm

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.

Reply
Upstate Lawyer April 29, 2013 at 9:33 pm

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.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 9:59 pm

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.

Right April 29, 2013 at 10:16 pm

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.

CL April 30, 2013 at 9:34 am

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?).

CL April 29, 2013 at 9:15 pm

“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.

Reply
Right April 29, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Ah. You’re a Charleston Law student, “CL.” Perhaps a grad, even. That explains it. This sounds like a bad law school argument.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 9:51 pm

You make some valid points… Oh wait you said nothing at all. But thanks for sharing.

Right April 29, 2013 at 9:56 pm

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?

CL April 30, 2013 at 9:24 am

“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.

Right April 30, 2013 at 11:34 am

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.

CL April 30, 2013 at 12:11 pm

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.

Upstate Lawyer April 29, 2013 at 9:30 pm

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.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 9:45 pm

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…

CL April 29, 2013 at 9:49 pm

Should have typed out “violate one’s Rights without labeling them an enemy combatant”

Right April 29, 2013 at 9:52 pm

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.

CL April 29, 2013 at 3:57 pm

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.

Reply
Upstate Lawyer April 29, 2013 at 5:18 pm

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.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 9:09 pm

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.

Reply
Upstate Lawyer April 29, 2013 at 9:33 pm

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.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 9:59 pm

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.

Right April 29, 2013 at 10:16 pm

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.

CL April 30, 2013 at 9:34 am

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?).

CL April 29, 2013 at 9:15 pm

“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.

Reply
Right April 29, 2013 at 9:17 pm

Ah. You’re a Charleston Law student, “CL.” Perhaps a grad, even. That explains it. This sounds like a bad law school argument.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 9:51 pm

You make some valid points… Oh wait you said nothing at all. But thanks for sharing.

Right April 29, 2013 at 9:56 pm

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?

CL April 30, 2013 at 9:24 am

“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.

Right April 30, 2013 at 11:34 am

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.

CL April 30, 2013 at 12:11 pm

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.

Upstate Lawyer April 29, 2013 at 9:30 pm

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.

Reply
CL April 29, 2013 at 9:45 pm

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…

CL April 29, 2013 at 9:49 pm

Should have typed out “violate one’s Rights without labeling them an enemy combatant”

Right April 29, 2013 at 9:52 pm

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.

Mr. Magoo April 29, 2013 at 3:59 pm

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?”

Reply
Right April 29, 2013 at 4:17 pm

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.

Reply
Upstate Lawyer April 29, 2013 at 5:27 pm

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.

Reply
Right April 30, 2013 at 7:08 am

“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.

Reply
Mr. Magoo April 29, 2013 at 3:59 pm

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?”

Reply
Right April 29, 2013 at 4:17 pm

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.

Reply
Upstate Lawyer April 29, 2013 at 5:27 pm

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.

Reply
Right April 30, 2013 at 7:08 am

“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.

Reply
GrandTango April 29, 2013 at 4:03 pm

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)…

Reply
Jan April 29, 2013 at 5:57 pm

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.

Reply
GrandTango April 29, 2013 at 8:49 pm

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.

Reply
Right April 30, 2013 at 6:35 am

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.

Reply
Liberal=Science=Equality April 30, 2013 at 10:39 am

I’ve called him out on several lies, which he keeps repeatng…I think the idiot is just delusional.

Brigid April 30, 2013 at 3:21 pm

Name one. Let’s go.

Liberal=Science=Equality May 1, 2013 at 10:48 am

“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.

Brigid May 1, 2013 at 10:58 am

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.

Liberal=Science=Equality May 1, 2013 at 11:32 am

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?

Brigid May 1, 2013 at 11:25 am

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.”

Liberal=Science=Equality May 1, 2013 at 11:38 am

Steve Sailor editorlalizing…

Liberal=Science=Equality April 30, 2013 at 10:39 am

I’ve called him out on several lies, which he keeps repeatng…I think the idiot is just delusional.

katlaurenscounty April 29, 2013 at 5:26 pm

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.

Reply
Right April 29, 2013 at 5:34 pm

Uh – the two “FITS posts” she referenced were written by her, so…

Reply
katlaurenscounty April 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm

Appreciate correction, I retract. Ms. Lazenby’s posts are exempt.

Reply
katlaurenscounty April 29, 2013 at 5:26 pm

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.

Reply
Right April 29, 2013 at 5:34 pm

Uh – the two “FITS posts” she referenced were written by her, so…

Reply
katlaurenscounty April 29, 2013 at 5:56 pm

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.

Reply
BrigidBernadette April 29, 2013 at 8:19 pm

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.

Reply
Brigid April 29, 2013 at 8:19 pm

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.

Reply
GrandTango April 29, 2013 at 8:53 pm

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…

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 29, 2013 at 11:50 pm

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.

Reply
Upstate Lawyer April 30, 2013 at 12:14 am

So what are you saying?

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 30, 2013 at 10:37 pm

Just what I said – she made an inaccurate statement and I wanted to clean it up a bit. That’s all…

Reply
BrigidBernadette April 30, 2013 at 7:39 am

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.

Reply
Brigid April 30, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Two down votes, no comments. Care to tell me why? What do you disagree with? Do tell.

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 30, 2013 at 10:56 pm

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…

Reply
Brigid May 1, 2013 at 10:45 am

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.”

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 29, 2013 at 11:50 pm

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.

Reply
Upstate Lawyer April 30, 2013 at 12:14 am

So what are you saying?

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 30, 2013 at 10:37 pm

Just what I said – she made an inaccurate statement and I wanted to clean it up a bit. That’s all…

Reply
Brigid April 30, 2013 at 7:39 am

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.

Reply
Brigid April 30, 2013 at 3:22 pm

Two down votes, no comments. Care to tell me why? What do you disagree with? Do tell.

Reply
Mike at the Beach April 30, 2013 at 10:56 pm

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…

Reply
Brigid May 1, 2013 at 10:45 am

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.”

Reply
9" April 30, 2013 at 11:27 am

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.

Reply
Brigid April 30, 2013 at 3:09 pm

And? What is your point?

Reply
9" April 30, 2013 at 11:27 am

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.

Reply
Brigid April 30, 2013 at 3:09 pm

And? What is your point?

Reply

Leave a Comment