Criminal Complaint - US vs Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Forums: Legal, Due Process, Boston Bombings, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I read this in its entirety. The affidavit is chilling - in a number of ways.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/criminal-complaint-united-states-vs-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/412/

First, it's clear that there is significant evidence to bring "Johar" to trail. OTOH, it disturbs me that our state of surveillance is such that we can track an individual walking down a city street at this level. OTOH, without these videos it's highly likely that the Tsarnaev brothers would not have been identified quickly, if at all.

On another hand (I have many in this particular situation) we have a certain group of Senators (I usually refer to them as the 'haters') who are against recognizing the citizenship and specific rights, therein, being afforded to "Johar" and want him treated as an enemy combatant so that he can be interrogated at a level not subjected to a citizen of the US.

I'm all over the board on this one. Generally, for now, I'm coming down on the side of due process.

What say you?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 15 • Views: 6,376 • Replies: 69
Topic Closed

@JPB,

This would be a great strategy for future sleeper cells...become a US citizen before you put your plots into action...

Watch the US justice system and constitution implode upon itself from all the infighting it will generate as people debate over whether or not you are afforded all the protections of citizenship after executing one of your plots.

Can you be a protected U.S. citizen while being a devout practitioner of a religious sect that seeks to destroy the U.S.?

This is the ultimate freedom of vs freedom from religion conundrum for the U.S. citizen and the U.S. justice system.

4 Replies

@JPB,

Haven't read past your opening post. I'm a mess about miranda, as I can see the public safety issue as overriding (are there other bombs?), but don't trust interrogators one whit.

Listening, Jaye.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

That may be true, not arguing, but did these guys come here as sleepers? no.

I read somewhere, maybe one of the uncle interviews, that someone's views turned Tamberlan.

I am assuming you are not calling islam a religious sect that seeks to destroy the U.S.
Or are you?

0 Replies

@Butrflynet,

Indeed it is, and it's why I have so many hands in this particular pot.

But, that would mean that establishing citizenship had it's own ulterior motive. I don't deny that it's possible. It certainly is. But, as a nation of laws who supposedly prides itself on the rule of due process, how can we judge?

I'm as equally concerned about the trail of every movement being documented as one walks down a city street as I am about the due process issues.

There are many concerns here, not the least is using whatever tools are available to bring someone to justice. As much as I'm glad they were identified easily and early, I'm concerned that it was that easy.

1 Reply

@ossobuco,

I didn't post the text of the complaint, osso, because it really should be read in its entirety. I provided the link. It's chilling. Both from a standpoint of, "How could they...?" and "How could we...?" know so much.

0 Replies

@JPB,

It's pretty clear to me. He's a citizen. He gets all his rights including Miranda, a court appointed lawyer and due process. Timothy McVeigh got the same. As I recall, there was no one calling for McVeigh to get anything other than a fair trial. His stated intent was to bring down the US government and he killed 168 people, 19 of which were children under the age of 6. He injured more than 680 people. McVeigh also probably had real information about conspirators against the US. If people didn't want to strip him of his rights, why would we want to do so here?

The obvious answer is that he's a Muslim and some people want revenge; revenge for Boston, revenge for 9-11, righteous vengeance against the foreigner. I'm pretty sure this kid doesn't know anything about more plots and if he did you'd probably get more information out of him by giving him a puppy to keep him company in his jail cell than by torture, but the idea of putting him on a rack is so exciting. Maybe those senators with their dander up will put it on live TV.

I'll pass on that. Due process works for me.

3 Replies

@engineer,

I agree, engineer, but bfn brings up a good point. Do those who want to do harm establish citizenship first and then cover themselves thereunder?

It's a valid question.

1 Reply

@engineer,

That's what I said in the first place, engineer, whatever post, but part of me sees room for pertinent questions (where are the other bombs). And it's what I say now too, just shakier.

0 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

Do those who want to do harm establish citizenship first and then cover themselves thereunder?

I don't see citizenship as any sort of cover. McVeigh still ended up with a free lethal injection courtesy of the state so it certainly didn't get him off the hook. In this case, it took the younger guy 10 years to get citizenship (the older brother never got it) and what is it going to get him? An attorney? Protection from torture techniques we shouldn't be doing anyway? I see it as a false argument. We should be treating everyone as having basic legal rights instead of looking for loopholes to deny them. For those who feel that the Bill of Rights went overboard, this is just the type of situation that they can use to get otherwise rational people to agree to irrational things. Compare again to McVeigh. Why should this guy be treated differently when McVeigh's crime was an order of magnitude worse? Only by combining our natural aversion to "the other" with the horror of the crime can you get people to consider something that they would outright reject in calmer circumstances.

0 Replies

I haven't checked on the legal procedure, but it seems to me that the notion of a hostile alien gaining citizenship simply in order to claim protection under the US Constitution is arrant nonsense. Naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked faster than it took them to acquire it. I believe it would take nothing more than an administrative order from Immigration & Naturalization, you wouldn't even need a court hearing.

In the meantime, if one is a US citizen, he or she is certainly entitled to all the constitutional protections, regardless of the enormity of the crime they are accused of.

1 Reply

@Lustig Andrei,

Quote:

Naturalized citizens can have their citizenship revoked faster than it took them to acquire it.

I was listening to an NPR story and they said the opposite is true. Once a citizen, you cannot be stripped of it unless they can make a case your oath of citizenship was not taken in good faith. Of course if the government says it wasn't in good faith because you set off a bomb, you have a tough counter argument.

1 Reply

@engineer,

engineer wrote:

Of course if the government says it wasn't in good faith because you set off a bomb, you have a tough counter argument.

Well, that's the point. Ivan Demianchuck (sp.? but remember him?) had his citizenship revoked because it was found that he had lied about having been in the German army during WW II.

3 Replies

@JPB,

JPB wrote:

I read this in its entirety. The affidavit is chilling - in a number of ways.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/criminal-complaint-united-states-vs-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/412/

First, it's clear that there is significant evidence to bring "Johar" to trail. OTOH, it disturbs me that our state of surveillance is such that we can track an individual walking down a city street at this level. OTOH, without these videos it's highly likely that the Tsarnaev brothers would not have been identified quickly, if at all.

On another hand (I have many in this particular situation) we have a certain group of Senators (I usually refer to them as the 'haters') who are against recognizing the citizenship and specific rights, therein, being afforded to "Johar" and want him treated as an enemy combatant so that he can be interrogated at a level not subjected to a citizen of the US.

I'm all over the board on this one. Generally, for now, I'm coming down on the side of due process.

What say you?

I think most thinking people are "all over the place" on this one, JPB.

I have very little problem with all the cameras...and with the technology that allows the police to investigate in ways never thought of before. Jack the Ripper would have had one hell of a time doing his thing in today's downtown London!

A huge part of a safe society...involves each individual giving up some of the privacy we all want to enjoy!

Haven't read the linked piece yet...but I'll give it a shot later.

(Using the new quote feature here. Works like a charm. Thanks for waking me up!)

4 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

(Using the new quote feature here. Works like a charm. Thanks for waking me up!)

Oh, Christ! We've created a monster.

1 Reply

@roger,

roger wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

(Using the new quote feature here. Works like a charm. Thanks for waking me up!)

Oh, Christ! We've created a monster.

Yup!

0 Replies

I think everyone is missing a point here, at least two, in fact. The fifth amendment does not mention citizenship. One of the reasons for the prison in Cuba was that it avoided the provisions of the fifth amendment, which is not solely about self-incrimination. The military tribunals there would not have been possible if those prisoners had been held in the United States. Furthermore, all this babble about citizenship ignores that the due process requirements of the fourteenth amendment apply to all citizens, born or naturalized in the United States.

2 Replies

I think the comparison to McVeigh is a valid one. Do we treat naturalized citizens as being second-class? We aren't supposed to in good times. They vote, get Social Security, etc. The alleged perp was subject to our draft laws as well.

In good times (or at least neutral ones), naturalized citizens are treated identically to natural-born ones. The same must be true in truly dire times, or gaining citizenship starts to turn into a somewhat meaningless exercise.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have very little problem with all the cameras...and with the technology that allows the police to investigate in ways never thought of before. Jack the Ripper would have had one hell of a time doing his thing in today's downtown London!

A huge part of a safe society...involves each individual giving up some of the privacy we all want to enjoy!

I must have been at a very impressionable age when I watched 1984 in english class because it impressed the hell out of me. As someone who leans libertarian I take offense at an attitude of "only bad guys have something to hide" and that being concerned about privacy issues means one must have something to hide.

jespah wrote:

I think the comparison to McVeigh is a valid one. Do we treat naturalized citizens as being second-class? We aren't supposed to in good times. They vote, get Social Security, etc. The alleged perp was subject to our draft laws as well.

In good times (or at least neutral ones), naturalized citizens are treated identically to natural-born ones. The same must be true in truly dire times, or gaining citizenship starts to turn into a somewhat meaningless exercise.

I agree.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

Good point.

Quote:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation

0 Replies

Criminal Complaint - US vs Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know