IGX

Turdacious wrote:
Bats brings up a critical point IMO. If Tsarnaev is part of a larger (possibly international) organization, does the normal criminal process allow us to get the intelligence we need? What if the useful information is time sensitive?

The Unabomber acted alone. McVeigh was part of a very small self contained group. Tsarnaev may be a part of something larger. Is the public safety exception sufficient?

No, and it shouldn't be, or it becomes so broad that it eviscerates the constitutional principles behind the Miranda process.

Anyone could be "part of something larger." That doesn't mean U.S. citizens should be detained indefinitely, without a trial, without due process, and without protections against self-incrimination.

It's so obvious that it's not really a serious question at all. It's just typical cat and mouse. The FBI knows it's really stretching the boundaries of the law, but it serves their purpose and until SCOTUS slaps them down, it's probably serving them well. That's how the whole process works, really.

So if I'm understanding you right:
Tsarnaev should be tried according to the normal criminal process, with a very limited public safety exception.
We should accept some risk of additional casualties as a cost of maintaining our constitutional liberty.
The FBI will do whatever it wants anyway because the federal courts don't decide anything quickly, but eventually they might get their hand slapped.

It doesn't sound particularly obvious at all. Cases like this seem to fit pretty well into a large grey area of the 5th amendment. I don't see how the ambiguity really helps anybody other than lawyers.

Turdacious wrote:So if I'm understanding you right:
Tsarnaev should be tried according to the normal criminal process, with a very limited public safety exception.
We should accept some risk of additional casualties as a cost of maintaining our constitutional liberty.
The FBI will do whatever it wants anyway because the federal courts don't decide anything quickly, but eventually they might get their hand slapped.

It doesn't sound particularly obvious at all. Cases like this seem to fit pretty well into a large grey area of the 5th amendment. I don't see how the ambiguity really helps anybody other than lawyers.

OK

After a thorough investigation, that Chechen fuck should die in custody.

Dan Martin wrote:After a thorough investigation, that Chechen fuck should die in custody.

This ^^^.

If he is a citizen, let the law take its course. Sandy Hook was worse than this. Law works fine there.

Either way, the law will take its course. If he has terrorist connections, the Obama Admin can take him down the enemy combatant road to Gitmo & a military tribunal (which I doubt). If he is a lone wolf type, then he will go down the road to a criminal trial, subject to the Miranda exception.
Both roads are legal.

It's simple.

He is an American citizen, so try him as you would someone working for an enemy government if he has enough linkage to outside groups and such and kill him. (Bargain info for method of killing and the absensce of pork products in the process.)

If not, then try him like anyone else for such slaughter and kill him. (See above.)

You people haven't been paying attention.

If he is an American citizen, Obama has the right to have him killed without accusation or trial.

The public safety exception is a mild infringement of civil liberties compared to placing an entire city under house arrest and conducting warrantless house-to-house searches. The reaction of law enforcement to this bombing was monstrous.

Pinky wrote:The public safety exception is a mild infringement of civil liberties compared to placing an entire city under house arrest and conducting warrantless house-to-house searches. The reaction of law enforcement to this bombing was monstrous.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8[/youtube]

At least their insane, authoritarian overreaction resulted in the capture of the remaining suspect. It's not like one of the citizens they put under house arrest could have noticed the blood leading to this kid's hiding place. Clearly reducing the number of eyes on the street and expecting the suspect to be found hiding in a house full of people he didn't know was the correct course of action.

Pinky wrote:At least their insane, authoritarian overreaction resulted in the capture of the remaining suspect. It's not like one of the citizens they put under house arrest could have noticed the blood leading to this kid's hiding place. Clearly reducing the number of eyes on the street and expecting the suspect to be found hiding in a house full of people he didn't know was the correct course of action.

Yeah, calls of "the brave law enforcement capturing the most dangerous fugitive in the history of the US" were sort of misplaced considering it was a guy whose wife wouldn't let him smoke in their house who finally did the deed.