3 readers online now  |  69 million page views

Determination of a Legal Premise or a Political one

Reader comment on item: Boston Bombing Lesson: Ban Niqabs and Burqas
in response to reader comment: Enemy Combatant

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Apr 25, 2013 at 19:12

The premise of not naming Dzhokhar Tsarnaev an enemy combatant is a loaded question from any perspective one tries to look at it. The first litmus test is the Constitutional one, since if anyone is still interested in living by its precepts and the alleged killer was made a citizen, then that must be accounted for. Next to consider, was his a crime against the state (meaning the nation) or a crime against person(s)? Further, if as it is presumed he and his accomplice brother were in fact carrying out a 'terrorist attack,' do local laws govern potential accusations or do the Feds have a legitimate case to pursue?

As far as can be seen by an observer's perspective for the moment, it is all of the above. When one considers the gravity of the crimes, this can be rightly said to pale in comparison to the Federal building bombing in Oklahoma City, leaving alone the Sep 11 attacks as being in a different category due to the fact the principal offenders were not citizens, if remembered correctly.

At minimum, Tsarnaev can be charged with murder, a case for which is already quite compelling and should be easy to prosecute on that premise alone. But as it is already demonstrated, very few are looking to take the simplicity of that approach for a variety of reasons, not the least of which might be due to the inability to differentiate just exactly what kind of crime was committed and which of the various applicable laws were actually violated.

But, could Tsarnaev be charged with the greater atrocity of being an enemy combatant? This leads to a speculation of fifth columnists in country and the greater implication of with whom are we at war? The Russians do indeed have a wartime standing with Chechens; but does the United States? If the more sublime aspect of being at war with the unnamed groups having connections to al-Qaeda is allowed to prevail, can that case be made against an individual who, for all intents and purposes, was likely doing nothing more than following in the footsteps of a brother to which he evidently held in higher esteem?

So, for the immediate view, it is going to be a political spectacle for which and from which America will never be able to take away any good results since it will take a very long time to sort it all out. Then the question remains: what will America do about the continuing contemporary situation of potential attacks of others who now see that vulnerable America is even more vulnerable due to the inconsistent response of not being able to identify a terrorist attack when it is perpetrated, even by supposed citizens against other citizens (like Fort Hood).

It is here that the American citizen is not being given the best understanding of the circumstances of just what the government is doing. In the shadows of such things, the issue of allowing lawful citizens their Constitutional right to self protection by arms is somehow given nexus to the bombing incident as the American Administrative Chief Executive and his vice present walk away in wonder as to why they were not able to get more extreme gun control measure put into place, which begs the question: will this actually be allowed to factor in the next iteration of gun control? For the moment, that still remains to be seen.

Submitting....

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

Submit a comment on this item

Reader comments (90) on this item

Title Commenter Date Thread
Reverse discrimination? [133 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
PrashantMay 29, 2013 17:06206563
Inequality [67 words]Mohamed HussainMay 17, 2013 06:22206116
Irrelevance [81 words]Just BeinfairMay 28, 2013 07:03206116
1islamists use the niqab to hide their terrorist actions [28 words]Phil GreendApr 27, 2013 18:02205683
1Inquiry [14 words]JGApr 25, 2013 11:31205596
Inquiry [53 words]J GApr 25, 2013 11:23205595
Distinguishing Motives that are Not Purely Religious and Cannot be Hidden [432 words]M. ToveyApr 22, 2013 18:00205460
1Enemy Combatant [46 words]Clifford IshiiApr 24, 2013 14:08205460
Determination of a Legal Premise or a Political one [571 words]M. ToveyApr 25, 2013 19:12205460
2After Boston, Ban Guns Not Burqus... [124 words]Jerry DeibertApr 22, 2013 17:37205458
9Other Lessons of the islamic Boston Bombings et al. [272 words]Domenic PepeApr 22, 2013 17:32205457
4Only a beginning [250 words]John GrenierApr 22, 2013 10:55205441
John Grenier missed the point [408 words]PrashantApr 23, 2013 21:10205441
stop a series, the danger of cameras [144 words]mythApr 22, 2013 06:48205429
proliferation of Burqa and Niqab into South Africa [243 words]howard hersh pageApr 22, 2013 04:43205425
1Safety for all [59 words]WilsonApr 22, 2013 02:39205421
2I have had enough of Islam and what it represents [203 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
NuritGApr 22, 2013 02:35205420
Re Nurit's comment [189 words]Kepha HorApr 28, 2013 08:40205420
Judge Jeanine Pirro speaks for me [34 words]NuritGApr 29, 2013 23:25205420
Jeanne Pirro [8 words]Kepha HorMay 4, 2013 15:19205420
Disagreement [107 words]cmtljnpkirptsvji1683Jun 21, 2013 23:09205420
Were they double agents who betrayed the US? [25 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
PTApr 22, 2013 01:41205418
1Right again [46 words]LauraApr 22, 2013 01:08205417
2Muslims ban all religious attire of infidels. [11 words]IamJosephApr 21, 2013 21:45205406
Tsarnaev Brothers Forgot to Wear Their Niqabs & Burqas [265 words]RexApr 21, 2013 20:43205404
1what happened to religious freedom? [187 words]miri schwartzApr 21, 2013 19:56205400
1Fallacy of moral equivalency [201 words]DmitryApr 22, 2013 08:03205400
1Religious Freedom Can Be Abused [254 words]Mike RamirezApr 22, 2013 09:12205400
1Religious Freedom??? [97 words]John GrenierApr 22, 2013 09:24205400
Reread the post [69 words]Susan KApr 22, 2013 12:08205400
2They Lost Their Rights to Religious Freedom When They Waged Jihad on Us [28 words]SteveApr 22, 2013 12:24205400
10Veiling of Women: Qur'an 33:59 [167 words]Mike RamirezApr 22, 2013 20:51205400
VEIL [156 words]Susan KApr 22, 2013 23:53205400
not bashing anyone [64 words]miri schwartzApr 23, 2013 20:18205400
is there a solution? [131 words]miri schwartzApr 23, 2013 20:31205400
Rights of religious freedom [284 words]PrashantApr 23, 2013 20:31205400
decapitation of animals?? [38 words]miri schwartzApr 23, 2013 20:33205400
solutions?? [130 words]miri schwartzApr 23, 2013 20:41205400
interesting [35 words]miri schwartzApr 23, 2013 20:43205400
1Abrogated Surahs [194 words]Mike RamirezApr 23, 2013 20:54205400
Correction [48 words]Mike RamirezApr 23, 2013 22:06205400
3But faces are what is being discussed [117 words]saraApr 24, 2013 21:30205400
Veil [137 words]Susan KApr 24, 2013 22:36205400
Veil [360 words]Susan KApr 24, 2013 23:01205400
Yes, it's about covering the face. [271 words]Mike RamirezApr 25, 2013 00:29205400
Not offended [246 words]Mike RamirezApr 25, 2013 01:35205400
Waste of time [57 words]DmitryApr 25, 2013 18:38205400
A Matter of Interpretation [344 words]Mike RamirezApr 26, 2013 00:23205400
2Uncover for Security's Sake? [666 words]Martin H. KatchenApr 21, 2013 19:31205398
Tracking terrorists via e-imagery [215 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
GloriaApr 21, 2013 19:04205396
Response to Dr. Pipes' response [82 words]GloriaApr 22, 2013 10:59205396
Boston Bombers [241 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Argus 4Apr 21, 2013 18:25205394
Great tip [7 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
nickApr 21, 2013 18:06205393
Yes it is definitely about surviellance [66 words]SoloApr 21, 2013 17:19205392
4KKK [11 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
jeremy neimandApr 21, 2013 16:49205390
I hold my breath. [39 words]DmitryApr 21, 2013 16:06205388
2It seems that the 19 year old criminal might have also killed his 26 year old criminal brother [84 words]dhimmi no moreApr 21, 2013 15:37205386
In the fog of terrorism [21 words]James J.Apr 22, 2013 13:11205386
2Yes, Outlaw the Wearing of Niqabs and Burqas in America [115 words]Mike RamirezApr 21, 2013 14:43205384
8Ban Sharia Laws too [86 words]Michael Hanni MorcosApr 21, 2013 14:21205383
1Agreed, but a step further.... [96 words]John GrenierApr 22, 2013 09:33205383
2Sharia-free is the answer [135 words]Michael Hanni MorcosApr 22, 2013 23:28205383
1trojan burqa or niqab [56 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
jeromeApr 21, 2013 14:19205382
3Why? [180 words]Jon TekmaApr 21, 2013 14:13205381
Why not? [8 words]James J.Apr 22, 2013 13:17205381
people of the book [43 words]miri schwartzApr 23, 2013 20:48205381
2Wrong on both counts, Miri [81 words]saraApr 24, 2013 21:35205381
We're just a couple of cool guys, pay us no attention [161 words]Edward ClineApr 21, 2013 13:55205379
But would it work? [147 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
John in Michigan, USAApr 21, 2013 13:48205378
1Politically Corrrect Rules [20 words]Carey PageApr 21, 2013 13:06205375
Loyalty & subversion [91 words]DAVID R.GROESBECKApr 21, 2013 12:50205373
1COMMON SENSE [82 words]Susan KApr 21, 2013 12:32205372
2Theroerically ... ? [46 words]DevonApr 21, 2013 12:31205371
2This type of thinking has weakened our society [72 words]John GrenierApr 22, 2013 09:42205371
1for John Grenier [20 words]Kepha HorApr 22, 2013 19:45205371
proves its not theorhetical [22 words]miri schwartzApr 23, 2013 20:57205371
1Got that backwards... [90 words]saraApr 24, 2013 21:39205371
An Unfortunate Article [33 words]
w/response from Daniel Pipes
Susan IrelandApr 21, 2013 11:57205370
common sense [28 words]Jan LapterApr 22, 2013 05:33205370
2they already know [42 words]rick oneilApr 23, 2013 16:25205370
Burqa Jihad [111 words]cmtljnpkirptsvji1683Jun 21, 2013 23:45205370
4Kuffar to the rescue [138 words]PrashantApr 21, 2013 04:17205354
1Kuffar [23 words]LilyApr 21, 2013 23:59205354
Not familiar with this term [34 words]John GrenierApr 22, 2013 09:36205354
2The term 'kuffar' [35 words]stanley bApr 22, 2013 19:13205354
2The meaning of the word Kuffar [37 words]RaoApr 23, 2013 10:36205354
Thank God for the Kuffar! [37 words]Jack Z.Apr 23, 2013 12:16205354
1Kuffar [73 words]Ali BabaApr 23, 2013 16:38205354
4Meaning of Kuffar- Hebrew word [87 words]saraApr 23, 2013 19:38205354
17Borowing without consent-is Stealing [134 words]Michael Hanni MorcosApr 23, 2013 22:57205354

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to Determination of a Legal Premise or a Political one by M. Tovey

Email me if someone replies to my comment

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List
eXTReMe Tracker

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2020 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)