Dzhokar Tsarnaev Charged



Via the Examiner, they’ve hit him with just two counts thus far, one of which is conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction (i.e. an IED) against persons or property in the U.S., but that’s enough for a death sentence if the DOJ chooses to seek it. I sense some anger on the right that the feds aren’t treating him as an “enemy combatant,” but I think that has more to do with the condemnatory power of that term than the legal consequences flowing from it. Terrorism is qualitatively different from common crime in its political motivation and so people want Tsarnaev to be treated qualitatively differently by the justice system. That’s also what drives much of the objections to Mirandizing terrorists, I think: It’s not that Miranda will matter hugely in determining whether he talks, it’s that by Mirandizing him you’re treating him like a common criminal rather than a man who’s declared war on the United States.

What about the presumption of innocence? Tsarnaev isn’t considered guilty of terrorism until he’s been tried and convicted – in a court, with full due process.

My concern is not for Tsarnaev, it is for the Constitution and the rule of law. Give him his rights, dot all the i’s and cross all the t’s. Give him a fair trial before a jury of his peers. Let them find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, then allow him to make whatever legal appeals he can.

Then strap him down, shove a big needle in his arm and pump his ass full of bye-bye juice.

About Myiq2xu - BA, JD, FJB

I was born and raised in a different country - America. I don't know what this place is.
This entry was posted in Boston Bombing, Crime, Dzhokar Tsarnaev, Law and Constitution and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Dzhokar Tsarnaev Charged

  1. HELENK says:

    maybe when the anger calms down and people remember that the Constitution trumps all, most Americans will agree with you

  2. 49erDweet (D) says:

    Most of those seeking the combatant desination don’t understand that usually brings about a much, much weaker sentence. Like Release For Time Served.

  3. fif says:

    This will be interesting to watch from a civil rights and legal point of view because it’s an internal case. The talking heads on both sides will spout all the same predictable crap, but it will be educational to read about the process here.

  4. DandyTiger says:

    This enemy combatant stuff is unfortunate. Sure, there’s a public safety issue. We want to see if there are other bombs, other people involve, etc. But then let’s get on with the justice system. It works pretty well.

    • 49erDweet (D) says:

      (from an earlier thread)
      National Security Case Record.
      Court system = 51now serving life or awaiting execution;
      Guatanamo= 3 released time served.
      It should be a no-brainer.

  5. HELENK says:

    Folk singer Richie Havens, star at Woodstock Festival, has died at age 72, per his agency – @RootsAgency

    • 49erDweet (D) says:

      Really? Whenever I traveled overseas my documents were scanned. How does one misspell a barcode? This – among many other things – stinks.

  6. myiq2xu says:

    Surprise: Americans not keen on paying higher gas taxes

    So much for the “crumbling infrastructure” argument, which is flawed in substance as well as style. In a rare show of bipartisan consensus, Gallup’s latest poll shows that two-thirds of Americans would oppose increasing gas taxes — at the state level, explicitly — in order to fund infrastructure work:

    Two-thirds of Americans would vote against a state law that would increase the gas tax by up to 20 cents a gallon, with the revenue going toward improving roads and bridges and building more mass transit. Three in 10 Americans would vote for an increase in the gas tax in their state.


    Gallup’s analysis shows that Democrats and Westerners are more likely to support those efforts, but that’s only in a relative sense. Democrats oppose higher gas taxes by a 15-point margin, 40/55, and among Westerners, the gap grows to 19 points at 37/56.

    It would probably be different if gas prices were down under $2 gallon.

  7. SHV says:

    “conspiracy to use a weapon of mass destruction”
    That designation should reserved for weapons of mass destruction not IED’s or a 30 round mag, etc. etc. With the trend in loose interpretation of laws and a wink, wink at the Constitution, “it’s only a piece of paper”, it’s not a big step from “enemy combatant” to “enemy of the State”. And in the race to that possible outcome, the Vile Progs are ahead.

  8. SHV says:

    “The two men are charged with “receiving support from al Qaeda elements in Iran” to carry out an attack and conspiring to murder people on a VIA railway train in the greater Toronto area, Assistant Police Commissioner James Malizia said.”
    al Qaeda in Iran??? now that is something that make no fucking sense.

  9. yttik says:

    I care about the Constitution and the rule of law too, but I think this particular terrorist could have some value as an informant. I’d like to see more charges, dozens of charges, at both the Fed and state level, but I think we have something to gain from keeping him alive. I don’t believe for one minute that these two were lone wolves.

    Naturally people want the DP, but I that’s so quick and I don’t think it brings closure. We can’t execute him enough, we really can’t do anything to make up for all those deaths and missing limbs and a lifetime of trauma.

  10. Somebody says:

    I read a comment by a Bostonian and apparently many of them have taken to calling the brothers “Speedbump” and “Stoner”……I like the name speedbump, but I sort of like “Shitbag” better than stoner. However I don’t live in Boston so I’ll defer to the names they’ve chosen.

    • 49erDweet (D) says:

      I’m praying with faint hope I’ve never voted for an idiot that supported a political asylum law that allows sanctuary seekers to flout the customs and traditions of “sanctuary”. But Wiki-ing the subject matter shows I’m wrong. We are sooooooo stupid! Instead of giving the world’s outcast a hand, we give them a legacy. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb, dum……

      • 49erDweet (D) says:

        Back in the day, the one granted asylum could never return to the place fled from except for their execution. And why would they desire to go back?

Comments are closed.