where will the bomber end up?

[pawprint2]

A very interesting story is on the Fox News web site today regarding where the Boston bomber may end up. I was shocked by the description of this prison, as some "experts" have suggested if inmates don't have cable TV, along with a laundry list of "programs" they can not be controlled, and the workers at the prisons would be unable to control the criminals population. I for one, am glad, that some prisons are run by real experts, it doesn't sound like the inmates are running this place- not at all. An added shame will be, he [the bomber] may not get the death penalty, as a prison is far too good a place for anyone that would attack our people. Here's a piece of the story:


According to Webster, Tsarnaev will be held in a 10x10 foot cell with a steel door at Devens. He’ll have very little human contact, and then only with guards or his legal team. Prisoners are typically allowed one hour a day of recreational time, something Webster did only once because he found it so dehumanizing.

“You are belly-belted and shackled when you leave your cell, you are made to walk backwards. When you walk backwards, you walk into a very large … dog kennel. There are no other inmates in the dog kennel at that time … And you simply stand there in the dog cage having two correctional officers watching you,” he described.

But he stressed that conditions are likely only to worsen for the bombing suspect. “One of two scenarios are going to occur—either a life sentence upon conviction or the death penalty. If it’s the death penalty, he’ll be going out to Terre Haute. He will be in a stricter environment during the period of time you’re awaiting execution. Or if he gets a life sentence, my guess is he’ll end up in the ADX Supermax in Florence, Colorado, where he again will have very limited to no human contact.”


Read more: Prison Expert John Webster Describes Two Places Dzhokhar Tsarnaev May Spend the Rest of His Life | Fox News Insider

 

[High Binder]

shame will be, he [the bomber] may not get the death penalty, as a prison is far too good a place for anyone that would attack our people. Here's a piece of the story:

No, he'll be working at Columbia university in a few years and loved by half the country.

 

[pmclaine]

...and the three people killed that day are still dead and some 20 odd amputations ocurred forever changing the lives of many people.

He made his bed sleep in it.

When those dead people comeback or those race watchers get their legs back I'll worry for Joker.

 

[pmclaine]

No, he'll be working at Columbia university in a few years and loved by half the country.

Perhaps ghost writing a book for those with political aspirations.

 

[madppcs]

All that talk of (Dog Kennel) is a goldmine for human rights organizations. I wouldn't be surprised to see his treatment be ruled as (Inhumane) and/or cruel.

 

[Maggot]

Dead............

 

[pawprint2]

All that talk of (Dog Kennel) is a goldmine for human rights organizations. I wouldn't be surprised to see his treatment be ruled as (Inhumane) and/or cruel.

This is how some of the "good" prisons are run, they don't have riots, they don't have a large gym, massive ball fields, tennis courts etc., did I mention they don't have riots? There is a growing number of limp wristed &&*&%&* that believe criminals- the scum of creation, as is this bombe,r deserve cable TV, along with expensive massive programs-even an Italian coffee machine etc. They reason, if the guards don't have a bone to take away from the scum, then the scum will take over the prison, and maybe even hurt one of the guards!! Of course, the fact that there are prisons NOT run that way (thank God)is daily proof, "easy" prisons are a choice made by elected officals, not a necessity! I believe the little bastard should get the death penalty, and the sooner the better! If we (the US Justice System) doesn't come down Hard as hell on this piece of shit, it will just give more Anti-Americans ideas......just saying.

 

[Phil1]

Without any of the envisioned 72 virgins.

 

[diverdon]

Dead............

Sir, I hope that you are correct.

 

[Tough Guy]

He could get off scott free if he openly declares himself gay.

 

[HD1911]

He could get off scott free if he openly declares himself gay.

Haha. Yeah no joke....sheesh.

 

[eli polite]

treat him as an enemy combatant and send him to Guantanamo bay... with the rest of them.

 

[84bandit]

My guess is hell.

But in regards to the enemy combatant, there is no way that they can classify him as an enemy combatant. There is simply no validity within the Law of Armed Conflict for that action. The AUMF is the closest thing that they have to play with, but that is a stretch. They would have to provide that he is a member of AQ or one of their affiliates, which is (and this is just my guess) practically impossible given the facts of the case.

For a group of people who want their government to be as limited as possible, it is quite the step to ask them to reclassify someone as a enemy combatant and lock him up forever without trial, especially when the legal means simply do not exist at this time.

 

[HighGroundMan]

He will eventually end up in Florence Colorado like an earlier post mentioned. That's where others like him are held. Why send him to Gitmo so he can be safe with his own kind and revered by those terrorist nutjobs? The military justice system is super slow and goes nowhere. The whole Nidal Hasan thing at Fort Hood is a joke that's been dragging on for three years now and he is in the county jail there. My sister is stationed at Fort Hood and works with the shooting victims on a daily basis. No justice in sight there. I would send him to San Quentin and let the Aryan Brotherhood, Bandidos, Bloods & Crips, Mexican Mafia, and the likes deal with him. Maybe share a cell with a serial killer pedophile cannibal.

 

[Downzero]

My guess is hell.

But in regards to the enemy combatant, there is no way that they can classify him as an enemy combatant. There is simply no validity within the Law of Armed Conflict for that action. The AUMF is the closest thing that they have to play with, but that is a stretch. They would have to provide that he is a member of AQ or one of their affiliates, which is (and this is just my guess) practically impossible given the facts of the case.

For a group of people who want their government to be as limited as possible, it is quite the step to ask them to reclassify someone as a enemy combatant and lock him up forever without trial, especially when the legal means simply do not exist at this time.

You need to read Ex parte Quirin very carefully.

My guess is hell as well, but probably no time soon.

 

[diverdon]

Without any of the envisioned 72 virgins.

Everybody gets misquotes that it is not virgins but Virginians. Ya know the kind that train at Quantico, and are still looking too kick ass.

 

[ArmaHeavy]

Everybody gets misquotes that it is not virgins but Virginians. Ya know the kind that train at Quantico, and are still looking too kick ass.

If he got 72 Virginians then I can promise you that it would be a very slow, painful death for him.

How slow? As fast as the moss will grow.

 

[Bunnypunter]

I hope he ends up as some big, thick dicked inmates bottom bitch that get gang raped every day. Maybe I'm sick in the head, but this bastard deserves no easy life from here on out. By the time he dies he will have wished for a swifter death.

 

[wilecoyote]

I hope he ends up as some big, thick dicked inmates bottom bitch that get gang raped every day. Maybe I'm sick in the head, but this bastard deserves no easy life from here on out. By the time he dies he will have wished for a swifter death.

...book:"Avenger"_ Author: Frederick Forsythe_ Year 2003_ (advised)

 

[84bandit]

You need to read Ex parte Quirin very carefully.

My guess is hell as well, but probably no time soon.

Well as the Supreme court has stated before in Youngstown Steel, when there is a question of law the law that applies closest should be used.

The closest law that would allow Ex Parte Quirin to apply would be the 2009 military commissions act, but the fourth requirement of this law requires that the individual be a member of AQ when captured; which disqualifies our young bomber.

In the case of Ex parte Quirin, we were in a Common Article 2 conflict which differs from a CA 3. You could argue best that a CA 3 applies to the global war on terror (The Supreme Court has also stated this). However, even CA 3 law becomes problematic. As Quirin states, "during a time of war." What war was this young man a part of? Surely you cant argue that he is a member of AQ and thus a combatant in the global war on terror? The legal framework just doesn't exist

This is a law enforcement issue, and he should be tried in a civilian court no different than the Aurora shooter. Neither American "security" law nor the law of war is capable of handling this type of situation. Many DoD and NATO legal scholars have been debating if there should be another Geneva convention held to address this sort of issue. (another Common Article for terrorism)

I think the kid should hang for this, but I think it should be done properly within a civilian court. The only reasons for a military tribunal is for intelligence gathering (what intel are you going to get from a snot nosed brat who listened to his older brother?) or because you have little evidence on your suspect. Simply put, there is no reason for a combatant classification or a military tribunal.

 

[pawprint2]

84bandit, you seem to have knowledge that no one else has. How do you know that the younger brother is not a member of AQ? Do you get a small wallet sized card when you "join"? Have you tapped into their [AQ's) global data base? What does it take to be a member of AQ-my guess is acting on their behalf would make you a member, unless you must go through a special ceremony, complete with all manner of weird AQ symbolism. It appears by your post that you believe, if the US LE data base does not list you as a member of AQ, then your not a member, regardless of your actions-this seems a little weak to me. I would not like to see this low life piece of trash classified as a combatant, for several reasons: He may end up as a problem for the military (military prison) for life. He would cost the military money-money better spent on killing members of AQ, and as several posters have pointed out, he should end up with a "special" cell mate, a far more likely outcome if he is sent to a Federal prison that has large numbers of gang members. You have stated all kinds of "legal" opinions, but have stayed away from Non uniformed combatants-spies/sappers, what is the international agreement on this type of combatant? An agreement we, the USA is a party to? The Fed was able to try and execute t McVeigh in a hurry, I see no reason why we shouldn't be able to do the same with this scumbag.

 

[84bandit]

Well spies and sappers have their place on the battlefield, and there are protocols within the law of war which discuss their treatment. Spies can be tried in both civilian and military court for their actions, but the law of war does make a distinction between state actors like a sapper/spy and a terrorist. In the law of war, spies are more or less "deactivated" than they are punished for spying (although they can be executed, obviously).

A terrorist act must constitute more than just a random act of violence in order for the Geneva Conventions to apply; which leads to the AQ argument. In order for us to make an effort to classify the younger brother as a member of AQ, we must be able to chase down the intel chain to a member of AQ or one of its affiliates. That being said, if actionable intelligence existed on an AQ connection between this young man or his brother and the larger group of AQ that exists OCONUS, there is a good chance that someone would have investigated further. Also, with the media as story hungry as it is today, dont you think an Al Qaede connection would have come out by now?

I think that we in this country make the mistake of saying "AL Qaeda" every time something like this happens, and that is dangerous. Many in the intelligence community think that group is on its deathbed, and continuing to throw their name out there will only allow their efforts to survive long after their operational ability has been completely destroyed.

I'm not claiming to be all knowing, or suggesting that I am infallible or that I have evidence that there is no connection to AQ, I am just suggesting that in order for this enemy combatant framework to be legal a nexus to AQ must exist, and (at this time) there is no evidence of that.

 

[pawprint2]

For those that have never read FM 27-10, here is a small quote, that is clear and easily understood regarding those wearing civilian clothes and engaged in violence against the US. :
Art. 106. Spies.—Any person who in time
of war is found lurking as a spy or acting as a
spy in or about any place, vessel, or aircraft,
within the control or jurisdiction of any of the
armed forces of the United States, or in or
about any shipyard, any manufacturing or
industrial plant, or any other place or
institution engaged in work in aid of the
prosecution of the war by the United States,
or elsewhere, shall be tried by a general
court- martial or by a military commission
and on conviction shall be punished by death.
-----------OR BY A MILITARY COMMISSION------- FM 27-10 is available on line, all should read it, and pay close attention to what almost every world power, including the US, has agreed to-for many years-on what is a spy, or a sapper. As the AQ do not have a uniform, I believe they fall into the spy category-execution is in their future. The biggest problem we have, is we are not set up to fight a club, or gang of thugs, but rather countries with geographical border. Pakistan is the great example: they claim to be our buddy, we give them billions of dollars, their people (including military) hide OBL, but they claim, "we know nothing, this is a criminal group, if we knew....." and for some reason we buy off on it! War against those countries that hide and help AQ, along with 100% zero aid, forever, may gain us some headway. Treating the scumbag Boston bomber in a "special" manner will on encourage other like minded trash from around the world-they'll come to the US, take 100,000's of dollars in welfare then kill as many Americans as possible. The sooner we try and execute this scum, the better off we will be in the future-the longer we drag it out, the more it costs, and the followers of AQ get an idea.....just saying.

 

[pawprint2]

84, regarding your statement: "there is a good chance that someone would have investigated further", are you kidding? I believe the Russian intel was given to the proper people in the Fed Gov, it looks like the FBI had a little chit-chat with the boys, and that was good enough. But with that said, there WAS actionable intel, just because the ball was dropped by the fed, only means the ball was dropped, it does not change the facts. FM 27-10 is much clearer on the handling of non uniformed combatants than you seem to realize, please give it 10 minutes. BTW, where do you get the idea that " A terrorist act must constitute more than just a random act of violence in order for the Geneva Conventions to apply"? Who decides what is "random" and what is well planned? Building of bombs, placing them in backpacks, carefully planting the bombs in crowds on a given day when large crowds would be present-to me, and this is just me, does not seem RANDOM. Maybe you could shed a little light on this, I may not understand random-as in my mind this seem to be carefully planned attack.

 

[84bandit]

Sir, I am going to disagree with the spy classification. If they were spies, then the US government would have been calling them spies for the last 12 years. Spies are a state actor, and since Al Qaeda is not a state, you cannot lump them in with state actors. Were Pakistan to declare that AQ is a state intelligence agency, then we could classify them as spies.

This is one of the problems we are currently wrestling with: what do we do when an Iranian spy attacks us? Do we consider it an act of war and start bombing Iran? When an actor has a distinct connection to a state, things get much more complicated, and costly in terms of American lives and treasure.

Pakistan is certainly playing both sides on this issue, but our Government's failure to stop aid and call them on it has not solved any problems. (Of course, cutting off aid might turn them into a hotbed for insurgents and further put our men and women in the middle east at risk)

 

[84bandit]

84, regarding your statement: "there is a good chance that someone would have investigated further", are you kidding? I believe the Russian intel was given to the proper people in the Fed Gov, it looks like the FBI had a little chit-chat with the boys, and that was good enough. But with that said, there WAS actionable intel, just because the ball was dropped by the fed, only means the ball was dropped, it does not change the facts. FM 27-10 is much clearer on the handling of non uniformed combatants than you seem to realize, please give it 10 minutes. BTW, where do you get the idea that " A terrorist act must constitute more than just a random act of violence in order for the Geneva Conventions to apply"? Who decides what is "random" and what is well planned? Building of bombs, placing them in backpacks, carefully planting the bombs in crowds on a given day when large crowds would be present-to me, and this is just me, does not seem RANDOM. Maybe you could shed a little light on this, I may not understand random-as in my mind this seem to be carefully planned attack.

Roger that: random means that it is not a part of a larger series of attacks; like a battle within an offensive. For example; the OKC bombing was a singular attack, not a part of a mass Skinhead offensive. So with that definition of random, the Al Qaeda connection does matter. Use the DC snipers as an example, they were tried as criminals despite their Islamic radical beliefs, but were not enemy combatants

I should have explained that better.

 

[pawprint2]

FM 27-10, a couple of extra quotes, you may find illuminating:
80. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Engage in Hostilities

Persons, such as guerrillas and partisans, who take up arms and commit hostile acts without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), are, when captured by the injured party, not entitled to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment.

81. Individuals Not of Armed Forces Who Commit Hostile Acts

Persons who, without having complied with the conditions prescribed by the laws of war for recognition as belligerents (see GPW, art. 4; par. 61 herein), commit hostile acts about or behind the lines of the enemy are not to be treated as prisoners of war and may be tried and sentenced to execution or imprisonment. Such acts include, but are not limited to, sabotage, destruction of communications facilities, intentional misleading of troops by guides, liberation of prisoners of war, and other acts not falling within Articles 104 and 106 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and Article 29 of the Hague Regulations.
For Me, and Me alone, there is nothing random about these two (and most likely more) attack's on the U.S., in fact, I would argue that these attacks are nothing more than a continuation of the attacks against the US by AQ ( and AQ's "network"), there have been attacks prior to this and there will be more after this, part of a chain of attacks if you will.
Your argument regarding the randomness, and non-AQ connection, would be stronger if, they older of the two had not gone back to AQ land, we [the US] had not been warned by the Russian intel service, their bombs were not AQ like, there web postings did not indicate there "sudden" change in actions (after the return trip from AQ land), the youngers admission that further plans were made to do more bombings in NY-not to mention their mothers rants.

 

[pawprint2]

84-your statement, "Pakistan is certainly playing both sides on this issue, but our Government's failure to stop aid and call them on it has not solved any problems. (Of course, cutting off aid might turn them into a hotbed for insurgents and further put our men and women in the middle east at risk) "
Is at the very least confusing! What are they now? This is a country that hid, and shielded OBL! The AQ camps, aid stations, weapons stashes, food supplies, medical supplies along with banking a commo needs for the AQ are well known to be a part of everyday life in Pakistan!!!!! I would argue that cutting off aid to Pakistan would not change one thing in regards to their love and aid to AQ-but would rather make fewer dollars available to help the AQ! If we were to follow your thought process to its logical end, we should give Pakistan MORE money-as the more we give the corrupt low life leaders in Pakistan more they will love us! This type of crap has been tried for year (FAR to many years) having never worked-anywhere. The only thing it has done it make our enemy stronger, and drained our nation of funds.

 

[84bandit]

Good argument: Just one more point and I will be done.

"If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action" -Pulled from the ICRC

So (in my opinion) I think that we should prosecute under domestic law, and just be done with it.

 

[vwhugger]

What with all the talk in the media today about where he/they were "radicalized", it looks to me like they're setting the stage to place the blame on Bush and war on terror. The left in this country did that so why not these guys and let the media pick up on it and continue their assault on Republicans and conservatives. After all, that's their end game.

 

[hankpac]

This guy has a High-profile, high-dollar lawyer arranged through the white house, and paid for by the taxpayer, was visited by Mrs POTUS, (instead of visiting the wounded). what on earth makes anyone think this guy is going to be seeing any significant punishment? The guy is a HERO to some elements of the world, and some elements of our own government.

 

[84bandit]

In related news, apparently Boston PD just took three more suspects into custody.

 

[KYpatriot]

US citizens should not be classified as enemy combatants, ever. Try them for treason as the Constitution demands, thus respecting the rule of law, or try them in the normal criminal process for murder and the other dozen or more laws they broke.

Dont throw the baby out with the bathwater, our liberty and the rights we have that protect us from government and our fellow citizens are worth far more than revenge on another muslim terrorist. Process matters here, and everything government does is always precedent for future actions.

What if the fourth amendment was revoked for those who engage in the drug trade, as a national security issue? There has been far more American death and destruction due to the drug trade than AlQaeda has even dreamed about. So, because of this threat, what if we just abolish the fourth amendment protections for the specific set of crimes known as drug offenses. We all know where that would go, any police stop or home invasion or other violation of privacy would be justified on the basis of suspicion of "drug activity." The incredibly important protection recognized in the fourth amendment would disappear for all practical purposes. (I chose this example because in some ways we are already doing this, but that is another topic)

Bottom line, our Oath is to the Constitution and the freedoms it recognizes, not to safety, not the eradication of terrorism, not even justice. I think we would do well to remember the greatest threat to human freedom, and thus safety, has ALWAYS been from government (ie, our own fellow citizens in positions of power). This isn't because the concept of government is bad, it is just a recognition that it is our human nature to abuse power over another for our own selfish gain, and we give our government enormous power and don't often hold them accountable for abuse of that power. Sometimes we actually ask for government to work those abuses on someone else, not thinking that they would ever come back on us. That line of thinking is childish and ignorant of history at best. Freedom lost is never an accident. It is the cumulative result of the actions of millions of people who appreciate safety or money or something else more than freedom. They always ending losing all of it anyway in the end, so lets stop going down that path.

 

[pawprint2]

KYpatriot, well said, I agree 100%-I have always felt they should be tried quickly-as was t McVeigh-and executed. But we should learn from our mistakes, when a foreign Govt. gives us good intel regarding a terrorist, they should not be made an American (not even allowed in to the country-much less given 100,000's of dollars in welfare). Just because they were Americans does not preclude us from learning who else was involved, regardless of what country they may be hiding in. Once found, killing by any means possible (within the laws of land warfare-not with the use of mustard gas etc.) should be our first task.
It was asked earlier by 84bandit if I thought we should go to war with a country that has been found to have sent a spy to do the US and has done damage? My answer is, it has started wars: WWI for example:
Main article: July Crisis

On 28 June 1914, Gavrilo Princip, a Bosnian Serb student and member of Young Bosnia, assassinated the heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo, Bosnia.[25] This began a month of diplomatic manoeuvring between Austria-Hungary, Germany, Russia, France, and Britain called the July Crisis. Wanting to finally end Serbian interference in Bosnia – the Black Hand had provided Princip and his group with their bombs and pistols, trained them, and helped them across the border, and the Austrians were correct to believe that Serbian officers and officials were involved [26]- Austria-Hungary delivered the July Ultimatum to Serbia, a series of ten demands intentionally made unacceptable, intending to provoke a war with Serbia.[27] When Serbia agreed to only eight of the ten demands, Austria-Hungary declared war on 28 July 1914. Strachan argues, "Whether an equivocal and early response by Serbia would have made any difference to Austria-Hungary's behaviour must be doubtful. Franz Ferdinand was not the sort of personality who commanded popularity, and his demise did not cast the empire into deepest mourning".[28]
For me all of the other people involved, regardless of the country they call "home" that were/are involved in killingl of Americans in the Boston bombing, must he hunted down and killed, if not outright, after a trial- found guilty and then executed, as prescribed by FM 27-10, any country that harbors AQ, and in fact shelters and aids AQ, should be given 72 hours to change their ways, if not, we should consider ourselves at war with them, no aid, no food, sink their ships, mine their harbors, seize their money in our banks etc. If we got busy with it, within a year I believe only N. Korea and Iran would be the only places these puke bags would be able to operate-result: Americans would be safer. That is a good result. Not to mention the huge savings in American Tax Dollars going to low life scum in the way of "aid" that could be spend here at home, or not added to our Chinese debt!

 

[Downzero]

Well as the Supreme court has stated before in Youngstown Steel, when there is a question of law the law that applies closest should be used.

The closest law that would allow Ex Parte Quirin to apply would be the 2009 military commissions act, but the fourth requirement of this law requires that the individual be a member of AQ when captured; which disqualifies our young bomber.

In the case of Ex parte Quirin, we were in a Common Article 2 conflict which differs from a CA 3. You could argue best that a CA 3 applies to the global war on terror (The Supreme Court has also stated this). However, even CA 3 law becomes problematic. As Quirin states, "during a time of war." What war was this young man a part of? Surely you cant argue that he is a member of AQ and thus a combatant in the global war on terror? The legal framework just doesn't exist

This is a law enforcement issue, and he should be tried in a civilian court no different than the Aurora shooter. Neither American "security" law nor the law of war is capable of handling this type of situation. Many DoD and NATO legal scholars have been debating if there should be another Geneva convention held to address this sort of issue. (another Common Article for terrorism)

I think the kid should hang for this, but I think it should be done properly within a civilian court. The only reasons for a military tribunal is for intelligence gathering (what intel are you going to get from a snot nosed brat who listened to his older brother?) or because you have little evidence on your suspect. Simply put, there is no reason for a combatant classification or a military tribunal.

The key thing to point out is that at least one of the criminals in Ex parte Quirin was an American citizen, the crime occurred on American soil, and they were not tried by a civilian court.

I am not sure that it'd be a good idea to try him by military tribunal, but I'm also not sure that it is completely out of the question.

Other legal scholars have suggested that the little stunt they pulled with the Miranda violations may also prevent him from getting the death penalty as well.