Skip to main content

I am referring to Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev as the Boston suspect, because he has not yet been formally accused and convicted.  I personally am of the opinion that the evidence will be more than enough to convict him of a pile of violations of the law when this matter is over.

But the hot news is that a bunch of Republicans want Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev held and interrogated as an enemy combatant.

Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, is among the earliest and most vocal proponents of declaring Mr. Tsarnaev an enemy combatant. Others include Senators Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Saxby Chambliss of Georgia and John McCain of Arizona, as well as Representative Peter T. King of New York, all also Republicans.
To keep it short and sweet, not only is this guy a naturalized US citizen (and we KNOW how bullshit these Republicans get about the holy status of US citizenship -- Benghazi, anybody?), but at the moment, there is ZERO evidence in the public domain that Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev personally ever had anything to do with any foreign organization of any description.  (His brother Tamarlan might be a different matter, but the last time anybody checked, he was DEAD.)

While I am revulsed at the activities of this guy and his brother Tamarlan as reported in the press, there does not appear to be any rational basis for designating this guy as an enemy combatant.  He is apparently a very bad person.  He should be tried under Federal criminal law.  If he is convicted of what is alleged, I think he should fry. (I happen to live in Brookline, Massachusetts, and I take last week's events personally.)

Oh yeah, by the way, Sen. Lindsay Graham is apparently a 30 year military JAG type, so one would think that he would have a handle on the law. Evidently not.

All these idiot Republicans know is slogans such as "Constitution" and "Second Amendment."  Actually understanding what they mean, and thinkng about other Constitutional provisions like the 4th Amendment, or the 5th Amendment, not so much.

And these guys get to pass laws that affect YOUR rights.  Amazing.

Update -- April 22, 2013 -- More Republican nonsense below the fold

The NY Times is now reporting about immigration legislation:

With legislation now under consideration, Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, sent a letter to Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the majority leader, underscoring the call from some of his colleagues “to incorporate the following national security concerns into the comprehensive immigration reform debate.”

“Before Congress moves forward, some important national security questions must be addressed,” Mr. Paul wrote. “The facts emerging in the Boston Marathon bombing have exposed a weakness in our current system. If we don’t use this debate as an opportunity to fix flaws in our current system, flaws made even more evident last week, then we will not be doing our jobs.”

His letter continued: “We should not proceed until we understand the specific failures of our immigration system. Why did the current system allow two individuals to immigrate to the United States from the Chechen Republic in Russia, an area known as a hotbed of Islamic extremism, who then committed acts of terrorism? Were there any safeguards? Could this have been prevented? Does the immigration reform before us address this?”


I guess Rand Paul can't do the math.  Ten years ago, this 19 year old was a 9 year old kid.  I imagine he was at that point a HARDENED CRIMINAL TYPE, whose antisocial tendencies should have been obvious to the most casual observer, RIGHT?

Well, Rand, RIGHT?  Especially obvious to an ophthalmologist like you??  Like maybe you can SEE STUFF us mere mortals can't see??

Holy cow.  These guys are FC.  In my house that is shorthand for Fuckin' Crazy.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (29+ / 0-)

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

    by BornDuringWWII on Sun Apr 21, 2013 at 11:18:29 PM PDT

  •  You're missing a fundamental truth about (42+ / 0-)

    the GOP leadership -- politicians, "opinion leaders," etc.

    They don't give a flying shit about the Constitution, civil liberties, the flag, or anything that they proclaim they Love, Support, and would Die to Defend when it suits them. They are like screaming three-year olds: they want what they want when they want it. They have no loyalty except to their wallets, their stomachs, their exercise of power, and their groins.

    Right now they're all fired up with bloodlust, a thirst for vengeance, and a desire to somehow besmirch Obama with the bombing and its surrounding events and issues. Hence the screams to toss Tsarnaev's citizenship out the window like yesterday's bird cage liner, and the calls for torture and summary execution. When Obama refuses to go down that road (as he already has, at least tentatively), they will scream about how he's "weak," "appeasing terrorists," and so forth.

    When it suits them to be seen as Staunch Defenders of Civil Liberties and the All-Sacred Constitution, they will do so. When it suits them to piss on our civil liberties and turn the Constitution into catbox filler, they'll do that, too.

    •  Black Max, I have always liked (8+ / 0-)

      your comments, but this one is through-the-roof true.

      Awful because of the truth it contains, but nevertheless a perfect summary of politics-as-we-know-it in this corrupt nation.

      Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

      by Youffraita on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 01:41:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Your line (5+ / 0-)
      They have no loyalty except to their wallets, their stomachs, their exercise of power, and their groins.
      puts me in mind of C.S. Lewis' Lecture "Men Without Chests".

      He said (70 years ago!):

      “we (modern society) make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”
      In the same essay he talks about men (and in the GOP its almost always about men) who have appetites (the gut) and intellect (a certain intelligence/cunning) but no character (the heart; virtues, values, rules to live by). He gives the graphic image of men seemingly intelligent (head) only due to the contrast of the gaping cavity under their chins down to their navels.

      When we listen to far too many of the modern GOP leadership (and far too many of their 1% international masters) they are indeed men without chests. They are driven by their appetites for money, pleasure, a word, greed. In all things, and they use their cunning minds to get it (SIVs and CDOs, multi-derivative trading, ALEC, de-regulation, off-shoring, legal maneuvering to avoid taxes, reduce taxes; write, enact and defend legislation for their own benefit; corrupt, rig or outright purchase of the legal system for their own benefit.)

      The questions of our time are can they be stopped (or have they grown too powerful), and are there enough people with "chests" who still have the will, the power and the organization to stop them?


      (PS. "The world produces enough for each person's need. It does not produce enough for each person's greed"--Gandhi)

      "God has given wine to gladden the hearts of people." Psalm 104:15

      by WineRev on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 04:43:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You forgot... (3+ / 0-)

      And they hate, just hate regulation except when they want to regulate: I.e. women's health issues, Gay equality, or the poor defenseless gun.  These guys make the word hypocrite seem mild.  Just hot air to get their way.  No consistency.  Graham is one of the worst.  He doesn't know which way to pander first.  Perhaps he is inconsistent in taking his meds.  What else could cause this display of [GOP]?

  •  Of course. (10+ / 0-)

    If it causes a disruption of anything the Obama administration has to do, the Republican Party will be there.

    Unlike many people here, I'm not convinced they do this for ideological reasons, but for tactical reasons regardless of how hypocritical it makes them in any instance (word verses deed).

    IOW, Republicans have reduced themselves to the political lowest common denominator and no longer really hold principles beyond lip service.

    Comparisons to pond scum insult algae and other simple life forms.

    What about my Daughter's future?

    by koNko on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 12:01:59 AM PDT

    •  Disagree on one point only: (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wintergreen8694, koNko, Black Max

      I think they have a true and unholy adoration of the almighty buck and will do anything -- literally ANYTHING -- to keep the bucks coming from their corporate overlords.

      Nothing else matters.

      Irony takes a worse beating from Republicans than Wile E. Coyote does from Acme. --Tara the Antisocial Social Worker

      by Youffraita on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 01:44:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lindsey Graham is a feckless opportunist (7+ / 0-)

    He parrots the shittiest GOP talking points one day, then they next appears on the Sunday yakkers painting himself as a one of the reasonable ones.

    This recent upchuck seems designed to defend against Tea Party challenges in the GOP primary. Gotta out-crazy the competish.

  •  Who was it Friday -- maybe NonnyO -- (7+ / 0-)

    who lost the last of her patience with "terror," "terrorism," and "terrorists." I'm right behind her.

    All this kind of talk does is inflate the importance of people who should be treated as (un)common criminals to themselves, their admirers, and our more gullible citizens; convince gullible Americans that we are in a state of conflict that justifies unprecedented domestic surveillance, mercenaries, torture, drone strikes against American citizens abroad without due process, NDAA, etc; and suck wealth out of the commons and into the hands of an MIC locked in an unholy embrace with the gov.

    I ultimately don't give a shit why these guys did what they did. The surviving brother should be tried in court and sentenced to life in prison, very circumscribed, but not locked 23/24 in a tiny cell without human contact. Solitary confinement is torture and we're no better than that son of a bitch NY state senator Ball or Yoo or Cheney or Gonzales if we advocate it IMO.

    Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

    by raincrow on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 12:23:29 AM PDT

    •  Unfortunately or fortunately, (4+ / 0-)

      most maximum security prisons keep prisoners locked up 23 out of 24 hours in a cell, for their own safety and the safety of other prisoners.
      Tsarnaev has a pretty high chance of being murdered within a week or two of being put into a general population.

      “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

      by skohayes on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 04:00:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh c'mon. There's no intermediate between (0+ / 0-)

        general population and isolation? My ex-housemate is in a state maximum security facility, and there are 3 levels of containment, plus solitary confinement as punishment.

        Solitary confinement as a short-term punishment is one thing. Twenty, 30, 40 years of solitary confinement is inexcusable. For God's sake, it's against the law in hundreds of communities across the country to stake a DOG outside on a short chain 24/7.

        There is no reason high-risk or high-penalty prisoners who are not violent and not abusive cannot be housed where they can see and speak to others for at least a few hours every day, and where they cannot see out of doors. There is no excuse for "dungeons" in the 21st century. There is no excuse for keeping someone in a tiger cage-sized cell for years, decades.

        Solitary confinement is torture. We must be better than this.

        Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

        by raincrow on Tue Apr 23, 2013 at 09:23:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  thanks for chipping away at that meme! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Black Max

      I too timidly spoke up against it, to general disclaim.

      After George W Bush so greatly abused that word, you'd think that we'd be just a bit more eager to use it more carefully now.

      But in general, no, no we aren't (with "we" referring to DailyKossers in general, not to mention Americans as a whole - not you or me in particular).

  •  Those senators can go fuck themselves. (9+ / 0-)

    They are piss-poor excuses for representatives of this great nation. I am so goddamned sick and tired of their endless war crap and all the fear-mongering hyper-militarized bullshit terminology that goes with it. They are small men with way too much power and it's long past time for these insecure asswipes to STFU.

    Try the bastard in civilian court and throw the book at him. If we can't handle this case as a civil society and instead run to our military to handle acts of extreme violence then this nation is fucked.

    Enough already.

    Not this mind and not this heart, I won't rot • Mumford & Sons

    by jayden on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 12:30:03 AM PDT

  •  It's Always The Same Rabid Crowd.... (11+ / 0-)

    Peter King & Lindsey Graham.  Their gripe this time is that the FBI screwed up on suspect #1.

    Oh....if only Peter & Lindsey had been there.  Oh.....if only they had been running the operation.  They would have done it quicker, better, bigger, & more decisively.  Or it never would have happened in the first place if those two had been running the show.

    They're both  legends in their own minds.....easy to pull off from their safe, cushy offices in DC

  •  They know that if they make enough noise (0+ / 0-)

    Obama will fold.  He's done it before and may do it this time.

    Keep the TVA public.

    by Paleo on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 02:15:37 AM PDT

  •  The very idea (4+ / 0-)

    that a President, at his own discretion, could choose to revoke or ignore, even temporarily, the citizenship and inherent rights of an American is probably a greater example of Executive Overreach then anything Obama has ever attempted since taking office (including his Drone policy).

    The GOP went into full-bore hair-on-fire mode over the fact that an Administration official didn't say "No" emphatically enough for them on the issue of "Could the President use drones to target an American citizen on American soil?" and yet now they want to casually toss around "Let's decide to treat this citizen like a non-citizen because um... because he's a criminal..a really bad criminal.   RAWR!! WE R TUFF, O YEZ WE R!!!!!"

    Sickening.  Someone should put Rand Paul on the record on this one.  "Senator Paul, do you think a President has the authority to treat an American citizen captures on American soil as an enemy combatant to deny them their Constitutional rights?"

    Красота спасет мир --F. Dostoevsky

    by Wisper on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 05:09:29 AM PDT

  •  the constitution used to protect (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jayden, wintergreen8694, citizen dan

    "persons" not just US citizens. The dominant meme over the last decade that it only applies to how the government treats citizens is depressing.

  •  I agree with you that Tsaranov should (0+ / 0-)

    get the death penalty.

    •  Yeah, they've gone over the edge (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jayden, wintergreen8694

      and come up around on the other side. Soft on terrorism!

      Putting this suspect into the military tribunal system means not only won't he get convicted swiftly, but he might escape the death penalty.

      The U.S. criminal justice system convicted and executed Timothy McVeigh within six years.

      The military tribunal system has yet to process a single defendant. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the principal architect of the 9/11 attack, has been in custody for 10 years and still no trial, no conviction, and no execution.

  •  Better for the world to see our courts work (6+ / 0-)

    just fine, we don't need to abandon our principals because of some fear.

    I would prefer we didn't look like scared little kids when these things happen.

    •  Yes, indeed (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      indie17, merrywidow, Black Max

      But apparently the folks who run the show in Washington and New York don't think our Constitution and our citizens are tough enough, durable enough, to deal with a terrible crime.

      I'm not sure what they think the Constitution is good for, but apparently, it's such a delicate, diaphonous hothouse flower that it needs to be protected from the rough-and-tumble of terrorists or really scary stuff.

      Fuck that. Put Mr. Tsarnaev on trial, give him the best lawyers, guarantee each and every last right, let him dispute the evidence against him, rebut every contention, and face every accuser. Then, if he's convicted, we can be pretty sure we got the right person.

      We don't go through this process because perpetrators of infamous crimes deserve more consideration than their victims; we do it because we don't want to compound an infamous crime by throwing the wrong person in jail. Oh, and because we're supposed to be the good guys, the ones who don't torture, or secretly try people, or lock them up indefinitely without charge or trial.

      At least we used to.

  •  Kelly Ayotte (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indie17, Black Max

    Rumor has it that Kelly will be the keynote speaker at New England College's commencement this year - unbelievable.  She is so opposite what the college stands for.

  •  Senator (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Black Max

    Graham will you still want him to be declared enemy combatant if he had used guns?.

    •  They did use guns without the required MA license (0+ / 0-)

      In Massachusetts, you need a license to POSSESS a gun.

      Neither brother had such a license, according to reports in the press.

      This should raise the issue of MANDATORY BACKGROUND CHECKS again.

      (But I better be careful how I say that, because these ignoramous Republicans have already confused Czechs with Chechens, and adding "background checks" to the mix will drive some of them batshit crazy.)

      "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry

      by BornDuringWWII on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 01:15:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Your last sentence is what's been scaring (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    young voter

    the living hell out of me for years now with this latest crop of extremists in such a position, along with the old whiny war mongers.

    "They love the founding fathers so much they will destroy everything they created and remake it in Rush Limbaughs image." MinistryofTruth, 9/29/11

    by AnnieR on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:52:29 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site