by Tina Grazier
We learn this morning that the terrorist, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, will be treated as a civil criminal and not an enemy combatant. This decision is explained away with the usual mangling of the meaning of words and thin excuses. This is no way to defend America.
Bill Gertz, Free Beacon informs on the subtle difference between the terrorism of an enemy combatant and violent extremism perpetrated by a criminal:
A 2008 FBI report called “Counterterrorism Analytical Lexicon” contains no mention of Islam or jihad. Instead, FBI analysts are required to state that jihad be called “violent extremism.”
Violent extremism is defined as an ideology that “encourages, endorses, condones, justifies, or supports the commission of a violent act or crime against the United States, its government, citizens, or allies in order to achieve political, social, or economic changes, or against individuals or groups who hold contrary opinions.”
Terrorism is defined as activity that is “the unlawful use or threat of violence in furtherance of political, religious, ideological, or social goals.”
Tsnarnaev is a petty criminal, rather than terrorists, in the double speak employed by this administration because his ideology justifies what he has done. He was motivated because of a philosophical disagreement, doncha know, and we can always simply agree to disagree in these matters. This allows the government to treat this man as misguided youth, a young man that has simply partied a little too hard in terms of his faith. Sure, he must pay for his enthusiasm about his chosen religion but it isn’t necessary to treat him like a terrorist. He may have broken a few eggs but his actions were not “unlawful” in the way that al Qaeda operations are considered unlawful. Our malleable media is dutifully compliant, running old photos that feature the fresh face of an innocent “angel”. Guest speakers are brought on to indulge in serious discussion about the psychological problems that might have afflicted these boys.
The depth and breadth of this failure to construct policy and security mechanisms in defense of this nation is impossible to measure. The damage inflicted on the nation’s legal understanding is impossible to measure. But both will have severe consequences. The people in Boston have already suffered consequences perpetrated by the overly enthusiastic Tsnarnaev brothers. Must we inflict the added consequence if a failure to seek justice and prevention of future attacks. There will be many more events before this administration leaves office, including the decimation of our military readiness.
It isn’t at all comforting to be reminded that President Obama, in his book, “The Audacity of Hope” wrote: “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in any ugly direction.” It is also discomfiting that he would tell Bob Woodward America could “absorb” another “terrorist attack”.
Should the people touched directly by the Boston Marathon terror attack, whose lives will be forever changed, be assured by the empty language and approach our President has taken? He is absically telling them that they are victims of excessive youthful enthusiasm in the name of a religious profit…no big deal.
I can’t speak for the real victims of this terror attack and I wouldn’t try to do so. I do know I am embarrassed by this decree of innocence. I am not assured or confident that President Obama intends to honor his sworn duty to defend our country. In fact I am appalled and offended by the pretender who plays Commander-in-Chief in the White House.
Tina:
“petty criminal”
“his ideology justifies what he has done”
“He was motivated because of a philosophical disagreement, doncha know, and we can always simply agree to disagree in these matters.”
“misguided youth”
“a young man that has simply partied a little too hard in terms of his faith”
“enthusiasm about his chosen religion”
“He may have broken a few eggs but his actions were not “unlawful” in the way that al Qaeda operations are considered unlawful.”
“He is absically telling them that they are victims of excessive youthful enthusiasm in the name of a religious profit…no big deal.”
“decree of innocence.”
Good God. Nine strawman arguments in one short article. Were you trying to beat a personal record?
Also, please learn the difference between “profit” and “prophet.”
I must concur with Chris. You really got to get a grip on yerself … you and ol’ Lindsay.
The man’s comments constitute the intellectual equivalent of soiling himself in public.
We don’t need to abandon the founding principles of America to deal with this. Unless … we are indeed … a lot of gutless morons.
I see I have rattled the cages of the imprisoned progressive birds on this blog.
So far we have not seen a coherent defense of the abuse of terms being employed by this administration or the idiocy that causes our media to fawn and fall in line behind it.
We have been treated to the usual drivel that passes for intellectual superiority, including a petty, in fact ridiculously haughty, lesson regarding prophet vs profit from the would be teacher that has, no doubt, made a similar error himself at least once in his short life.
I am definitely not impressed.
Libby we have hired ourselves a “gutless moron” to take the lead…what else would you expect?
I mean, I was just lectured on “misconstruing words” for accurately summarizing Jack and Tina’s proposal to keep Muslims out of Congress. But somehow all of the phrases I quoted from Tina, which make it sound as if the guy isn’t even gonna face jailtime, are perfectly OK? Those aren’t examples of misconstruing words at all?
“Civility for thee, but not for me” seems to be the rule here.
I have read some petty comments in my time, but no one can hold a candle to Chris and Libby.
What, precisely, do they profit? Everyone can use an editor now and then.
In any case, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could have been legitimately treated as an Islamo-fascist enemy combatant (which he is) subject to military court but instead will be treated as a civil criminal. A “disenfranchised” (as one paper put it) civil, BMW driving “Terrorista” graduate of an eastern university. As such he will likely never pay for his crimes and will have a long life recruiting other Islamo-fascists while being incarcerated. His health care will be provided, his dental work, his food and shelter. He will have access to television entertainment and a library. He will live a comfortable, though restricted, life. He will have the full use of his limbs. He will not suffer from the pain, paralysis or neuropathy of dismembered and/or bomb battered body. He will not be dead like the eight year old child whose life he snuffed out.
He will be free to emulate Chris and Libby and have a few mocking laughs. Heck, I bet he gets access to the internet and maybe even a Twitter account.
I completely understand Tina’s passion, ire, and disappointment. I only partially understand the snot from the two snots. Evidently, snot is their stock and trade.
Tina: “So far we have not seen a coherent defense of the abuse of terms being employed by this administration or the idiocy that causes our media to fawn and fall in line behind it.”
What “abuse of terms” are you talking about? You’ve offered no coherent explanation for why the bombing suspect should be treated as an enemy combatant. You have only offered strawman arguments that bear no relation to what your opponents are actually saying.
Legal experts on both the left and right are saying that the “enemy combatant” label just doesn’t fit this case, and would itself be an abuse of terms.
From Newsmax:
“Speaking in an exclusive interview, [Harvard law professor Alan] Dershowitz said that, while he personally likes Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain, “they absolutely should go back to school and study their constitutional law” if they persist in calling for 19-year-old terror suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev to be held as an enemy combatant.”
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Dershowitz-Interrogate-Suspect-Miranda/2013/04/21/id/500588
From Reason:
“Contrast Uncle Reslan’s pithy dismissal with the current Republican craze for declaring America a “battlefield” and demanding that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, a naturalized American citizen, be held as an “enemy combatant.”
That proposal, issued by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), among others, is illegal, unnecessary, and unwise.
As Justice Antonin Scalia noted in an earlier enemy combatant case, “where the government accuses a citizen of waging war against it, our constitutional tradition has been to prosecute him in federal court.”
And as Brookings’ Benjamin Wittes explains, “the public safety exception to Miranda means the FBI has a considerable degree of flexibility” in questioning Tsarnaev to explore any connection to foreign terrorism.
Republican lawmakers’ zeal for an “enemy combatant” designation puts them to the right of Justice Scalia and even President Nixon, who, upon signing the Non-Detention Act of 1971 (providing that “no citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress”), emphasized that “our democracy is built upon the constitutional guarantee that every citizen will be afforded due process of law.”
We shouldn’t allow terrorist tactics to scare us into undermining that guarantee. There’s good reason terrorism is so often called the “weapon of the weak.” In the 20th century, across the entire world “fewer than 20 terrorist attacks killed more than a hundred people,” Dan Gardner observes in The Science of Fear.”
http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/23/boston-bombing-suspects-are-losers-not-e
Your complaints in this matter are purely political; you’re using this as just another stick to beat Obama over the head with. You have no basis for your opinion in history or constitutional law, and you didn’t even bother to pretend to.
Also, you spelled “prophet” as “profit” three seperate times in two separate articles, which is just embarassing for a political blogger.
Look who else agrees:
Rand Paul: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Should Not Be Treated As Enemy Combatant
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Monday that Boston bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev should not be treated as an enemy combatant, a stance that puts him at odds with some of his Republican colleagues.
During an interview with Fox Business, Paul told host Neil Cavuto that he disagreed with Republicans who have called for the enemy combatant designation for Tsarnaev.
“I think we can still preserve the Bill of Rights,” Paul said. “I see no reason why our Constitution is not strong enough to convict this young man, with a jury trial, with the Bill of Rights. We do it to horrible people all the time. Rapists and murderers, they get lawyers, they get trials with juries ,and we seem to do a pretty good job of justice, so I think we can do it through our court system.”
Tsarnaev, one of two suspects accused of carrying out last week’s attack during the Boston Marathon, was charged Monday with the use of a weapon of mass destruction and malicious destruction of property resulting in death.
“He will not be treated as an enemy combatant,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said during a Monday briefing. “We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice. Under U.S. law, United States citizens cannot be tried in military commissions.”
Paul’s comments mark a split from Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), and Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), who released a joint statement Saturday along with Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.) urging for Tsarnaev to be held as an enemy combatant.
“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. The accused perpetrators of these acts were not common criminals attempting to profit from a criminal enterprise, but terrorists trying to injure, maim, and kill innocent Americans,” reads the statement. “The suspect, based upon his actions, clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status. We do not want this suspect to remain silent.”
Paul disagreed with their stance, telling Cavuto that he believed wounded veterans would be “disheartened” if the freedoms they fought for were infringed upon.
“I think they’re disheartened to think, Oh, we’re just going to tell people, ‘Oh, no jury trial anymore,’ so I think it is something worth standing up for,” Paul said. “I think of them fighting to defend the right to trial by jury.”
“In any case, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev could have been legitimately treated as an Islamo-fascist enemy combatant (which he is) subject to military court but instead will be treated as a civil criminal. A “disenfranchised” (as one paper put it) civil, BMW driving “Terrorista” graduate of an eastern university.”
Wind him up, and he spits it out. It shouldn’t be so easy.
“graduate of an eastern university” is particularly hilarious in that 1) he ain’t graduated from nowhere, he’s only 19, and 2) “eastern university” positively seeths with the resentment, envy and scorn that the less intellectually endowed among us … well … need I continue?
Military court trials are a trials by jury. “Preserving” the Bill Of Rights is not at odds with a military tribunal, something Rand Paul, evidently, fails to understand.
Will justice be served in a civil trial? It could happen.
Something I forgot to mention —
The most significant distinction between civil and military trials is that the military jury serves as both judge-and-jury in contrast to the separation of judge from jury in civil cases.
“Brookings’ Benjamin Wittes explains, “the public safety exception to Miranda means the FBI has a considerable degree of flexibility” in questioning Tsarnaev to explore any connection to foreign terrorism.”
Yep and after all language that refers to Muslim extremism has been forbidden and his lawyer has instructed him to shut up that “flexibility” won’t mean zot.
Besides they have already decided he was just a misguided youth! (a victim)
My focus is on what this administration has done to make sure that this person is not considered an enemy combatant. Definitions have been changed so that information that might have prevented this would not be pursued. Now that the deed is done the same language allows the administration to dismiss his actions as criminal rather than an enemy terrorist act.
(The administration has changed how it operates in the Middle East as well. The “kill list” makes sure that enemy threats are never captured and therefore never interrogated. The less information we gather the less evidence there will be.)
And somehow you have a problem figuring out how this administration uses the language and the law to bend in favor of the extremists who pose a violent threat to our nation and protect the president from being in a position to make the difficult decisions of a leader (Not to mention the progressive world courts).
“you spelled “prophet” as “profit” three seperate times in two separate articles, which is just embarassing for a political blogger.”
Yes it is a bit embarrassing. I’ll live.
But what to do about you. You just misspelled separate, then spelled it correctly without noticing…and then you misspelled embarrassing in the same sentence. As a college educated person (English Lit) I’d say you deserve to experience a bit of your own snobbery and scorn. Embarrassed?
I respect Rand Paul but I believe he is wrong to presume speak for “our wounded veterans”.
The accused has only been a citizen for one year. How is it that he became a citizen given what they knew about his brother? Was he adequately screened? Did this administration move language obstacles that would have prevented his becoming a citizen?
This newly minted citizen has shown he has no respect for our laws and no love of our country and he’s done it within one year! He made many, many wrong decisions and choices before committing these acts of violence. He could have changed his mind at any point along the way…but he didn’t. He put Jihad before his citizenship and the Constitution. He spit on the Constitution by committing this act of terror on the people gathered in Boston for the marathon. He is not a “fellow citizen” but a traitor and as such deserves the designation “enemy combatant” IMHO.
The word traitor, however, is another word no longer in the lexicon. This administration, indeed all radical progressive’s in America, have just dropped this word. How else could they justify rewarding the likes of terrorists like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn by welcoming them into higher education posts?
Ken Kluskowski, a fellow with the American Civil Rights Union and on faculty at Liberty University School of Law, writes in defense of delaying Miranda:
It’s an interesting question but it won’t be adequately pursued because the language is not available to designate him as acting in conjunction with terrorist cells even though he used a WMD and was instructed by an al Qaeda created web magazine to promote terrorist acts.
The constitution means nothing to this administration. The Constitution is in the way in some circumstances and to be used as a tool when it suits them.
Treating this traitor as an enemy combatant would not set a precedence for anything other than treating traitors as enemy combatants. The argument that it would open a door so that any American’s rights could be removed for any criminal act is just another case of fracturing the language.
How will we define terrorists that have come to this country and deliberately obtained citizenship in order to wage war on America in the future? If they are smart they will act alone or in pairs so as not to be designated a cell. When is a terrorist not a terrorist? When the language disallows the words that could convict them.
Tina and Jack are out here everyday posting their views in a readable blog. I would appreciate if Libby and Chris, who chose to plague them with petty annoyances, insults, and silly drivel would provide links to their own blogs.
Whoops, forgot the source:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/23/rand-paul-dzhokhar-tsarnaev_n_3138953.html?ref=topbar
Tina: “My focus is on what this administration has done to make sure that this person is not considered an enemy combatant. Definitions have been changed so that information that might have prevented this would not be pursued.”
You have no evidence for this. The administration hasn’t done anything in this case that doesn’t match legal precedence.
If anything, it was Bush who changed definitions by broadly expanding who could be classified as an enemy combatant.
The term “enemy combatant” is in itself Orwellian, since it declares a class of people exempt from the Geneva conventions, which are supposed to protect all prisoners.
More importantly, I’d like to point out that one of the sources you link to above, the American Free Press, is a white nationalist site which has trafficked in anti-semitic conspiracy theories, Holocaust denial, and 9/11 trutherism.
As I’ve told you (and Jack) before, when you link to such openly racist sites, you severely damage the credibility of your blog, yourself, and your entire movement.
Here is some information about the American Free Press, which has been designated as a hate group by the SPLC:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Free_Press
This is not the first time you or Jack have linked to a white nationalist site.
I think it’s time you two start asking yourselves how you allow that to happen so often. You need to take a hard look at your movement and consider why there is so much overlap between the modern right and fringe hate groups, that you can so frequently use the latter to support your positions without even noticing what they are.
There was a red flag in there, when the article lamented the plight of “white South Africans” who have allegedly had their rights violated. What he’s talking about, I have no idea, because I am not a white nationalist.
Not all Republicans are racist, but the Venn diagram should concern any reasonable Republican.
You need to be more careful about where you get your information.
As to the actual argument put forth by that article, it’s true that Obama and Ginsburg have said that there are flaws in the Constitution. (Heaven forfend!) But their argument is actually that the Constitution doesn’t do *enough* to ensure human rights. That’s the opposite of your argument. You are basically saying that, in order to successfully combat terror, we have to decide that the Constitution just doesn’t apply to some people. That the government should be able to detain suspects without trial or due process rights indefinitely. That our Constitutional system just isn’t good enough.
That is far more insulting to our Constitution, and to those who have died to protect it, than anything Obama or Ginsburg have said.
To make this argument, while at the same time accusing others of not appreciating the Constitution, is absurdly hypocritical. You can’t say one minute that you love the Constitution the mostest, and then say the next minute that certain classes of people should be denied Constitutional rights. Well, you can, but not without looking like an inconsistent hypocrite who can’t even follow her own thought process.
You know, you guys aren’t making any sense at all. It’s not like he’s gonna get off. We got the poor dumb dweeb on tape.
Is it, perhaps, that he won’t be tortured?
If that’s it, you are some sick f*^#s.
My argument Chris is that the President and his administration do not respect the Constitution and they have shown little intention of protecting the American people from Islamic terrorists.
“You have no evidence for this. The administration hasn’t done anything in this case that doesn’t match legal precedence.”
Clever wording Chris, good little commie progressive is catching on.
The administration set the table for this case long before the case ever came up. That has been my main point over the last few days. You want evidence that he has changed language and procedures to the extent that I now wonder whose side he’s on?
Here it is (all emphasis mine):
PJ Media
Scroll down to #2
It also explains how a guy accused of using a WMD to create extreme fear and to murder and maim folks in Boston, U.S.A. can be declared a criminal instead of an enemy combatant.
Read on at PJ Media: #3 informs that:
And you will really enjoy #4:
Please do go right on through to #10 where you will read this:
Want more…from the Thomas Moore law Center:
Investors reported following the Benghazi attack:
You might also find this at PJ Media a litte unsettling on this administrations entire ME/terrorism policy.
The House report on Benghazi is out and we will report on it soon.
Get back to me Chris when you’re done playing kindergarten word games and have finally gotten serious about the real threat the free world faces from Islamic Extremist terrorists…and their enablers in this administration!
Tina: “My argument Chris is that the President and his administration do not respect the Constitution”
But neither do you. Otherwise, you wouldn’t harbor such grave doubts that our Constitutional system can handle someone like the Boston Bomber. You wouldn’t argue that we have to step outside the Constitution in order to obtain justice.
“and they have shown little intention of protecting the American people from Islamic terrorists.”
That’s just…so unbelievably false, it’s like you’re living in another reality. The Obama administration has been just as overly aggressive in national security concerns as Bush. He’s kept Guantanamo open, made “kill lists,” used drones to kill terrorists (causing a lot of “collateral damage,” i.e. dead women and children, along the way), signed indefinite detention and targets assassinations into law…do you think he did all this for shits and giggles? No, he did it because he believes it has to be done for national security. He’s wrong, just as Bush was wrong; the best thing we can do to ensure security is to live up to our own Constitutional ideals.
I don’t have time to read all of the quotes you posted, but I spotted a lie in the first one:
“The motive for this new policy was the problematic issue that virtually all of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach partners have been identified by the FBI and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal court as fronts for terrorist organizations or have directly supported terrorist organizations.”
This is a pretty bold accusation, but it isn’t true; one only has to find one example of a non-terrorist-supporting Muslim outreach partner in order to prove his statement false. Off the top of my head, I can think of one that has not been identified as a supporter of terrorism: Imam Rauf, the head of the Islamic Community Center in New York.
“It also explains how a guy accused of using a WMD to create extreme fear and to murder and maim folks in Boston, U.S.A. can be declared a criminal instead of an enemy combatant.”
Tina, this has already been explained to you. U.S. citizens are traditionally not declared enemy combatants. In order to do so the U.S. must provide concrete, immediate evidence that the citizen is directly working with a foreign organization. That is evidence that we just didn’t have at this point. You are grasping at straws to find anything to bash Obama with. There are real flaws in his approach to terror, but they are all examples of him being too aggressive, not too “soft.”
“The administration set the table for this case long before the case ever came up.”
How? Exactly?
Well, maybe we shouldn’t be too hard on Tina over her vagaries of belief. She under some bad influences. Look at this what I pulled off Salon. Apparently, Rand Paul, of the constitutional liberty, anti-drone filibuster is equally wobbly in his principles, and has said that not only the brothers, but any old liquor store robber should be droned. And then:
“Of course, Paul isn’t the only GOP hypocrite on these issues. I can’t abide seeing Rep. Peter King as the face of the House GOP’s anti-terror brigade, since he was an avid supporter of the Irish Republican Army as “freedom fighters,” not terrorists, back in their heyday.
“We must pledge ourselves to support those brave men and women who this very moment are carrying forth the struggle against British imperialism in the streets of Belfast and Derry,” King told a pro-I.R.A. rally in 1982. Later he insisted: “If civilians are killed in an attack on a military installation, it is certainly regrettable, but I will not morally blame the I.R.A. for it.”
“If only Rand Paul had been around back then, he could have proposed banning all immigration from Ireland, because its people were so inclined towards terrorism. It probably wouldn’t have happened, since clearly white European immigrants or their descendants never come in for the same kind of scrutiny (or at least the Irish haven’t for a good 100 years or so), but it’s fun to think about.
“Back during his filibuster, I briefly thought Paul might prove a formidable 2016 GOP presidential candidate, if he channeled American discontent with the Obama administration’s drone policy and other national security excesses. I shouldn’t have worried. He’s just another opportunist, but his spine is even more flexible than most.”
That’s different, Libby. Irish people are white now.
Oh yeah? Guess you never heard of the black Irish? lol
Chris: “That’s just…so unbelievably false, it’s like you’re living in another reality. The Obama administration has been just as overly aggressive in national security concerns as Bush…”
Well that’s one opinion.
General Vallely begs to differ. He isn’t alone.
Chris this:
“…virtually all of the U.S. government’s Muslim outreach partners have been identified by the FBI and/or the Department of Justice (DOJ) in federal court as fronts for terrorist organizations or have directly supported terrorist organizations.”
Is NOT a lie. Greeley Gazette, 2011:
The Muslim Brotherhood was designated as a sponsor of terror organizations:
The MB organization isn’t listed on the Department of State website but, as I recall, it was listed as a terror organization under Bush.
So-called moderate groups are tolerated despite terror ties and influence (Also true under Bush). USA Today:
The left has used the supposed lack of WMD’s in Iraq to make jokes for years. I find it ironic that when they are presented with the opportunity to describe this non terrorist terrorist attack in America they choose WMD instead of IED or homemade bomb or simply bomb as they did in all of the reports. I just find it funny…ironic!
Libby, your glee over Rand Paul’s supposed flip flop will be short lived:
He spoke on radio today and said in his remarks to Cavuto he used the same words that he had used in the filibuster.
I have explained how this administration set the table by changing policy and language. Are you awake?