I don't understand what people think is wrong with the usual criminal justice system. If we can't convict someone of 3 murders, 140 attempted murders, destruction of property, using an explosive, etc... without resorting to wacky terrorism laws, then we have bigger problems.
The argument isn't that the criminal justice system (in this particular case) is inadequate for conviction but that actionable intelligence might be gleaned by following the rules regarding interrogation designed for warfare that wouldn't otherwise be accessible via regular criminal justice procedures.
Couldn't that apply in many criminal cases? If we didn't have to read a drug dealer his rights, and could use torture we might be able to get actionable intelligence on their cartel, or a child molestors network, etc...
Yes. This is a policy decision and one that is pretty murky with lots of differing opinions. The 'war on terror' and the 'war on drugs' are two areas where these policy decisions seem to come up quite a bit.
Or maybe a better way of characterizing the problem area is that it is deeply related to how we want to respond to patterns of violence caused by foreign, non-state actors: terrorist groups, drug cartels, organized crime, private militias, etc. (including US citizens that are involved with those foreign non-state actors).
What are you referring to? The Miranda thing or what Senators Graham and McCain are going on about?
The Miranda exception is not at all designed for warfare, and as far as I know there is no one within the current Administration even suggesting they might accede to what Graham/McCain suggest doing with regard to treating Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant.
This isn't a wacky terrorism law though, it was enacted in like 1994. It's more useful for things like the Atlantic Olympic Park bombing where there were comparatively few injuries but it's on the books and just as applicable for this.
Comments
I don't understand what people think is wrong with the usual criminal justice system. If we can't convict someone of 3 murders, 140 attempted murders, destruction of property, using an explosive, etc... without resorting to wacky terrorism laws, then we have bigger problems.
The argument isn't that the criminal justice system (in this particular case) is inadequate for conviction but that actionable intelligence might be gleaned by following the rules regarding interrogation designed for warfare that wouldn't otherwise be accessible via regular criminal justice procedures.
Couldn't that apply in many criminal cases? If we didn't have to read a drug dealer his rights, and could use torture we might be able to get actionable intelligence on their cartel, or a child molestors network, etc...
Yes. This is a policy decision and one that is pretty murky with lots of differing opinions. The 'war on terror' and the 'war on drugs' are two areas where these policy decisions seem to come up quite a bit.
Or maybe a better way of characterizing the problem area is that it is deeply related to how we want to respond to patterns of violence caused by foreign, non-state actors: terrorist groups, drug cartels, organized crime, private militias, etc. (including US citizens that are involved with those foreign non-state actors).
What are you referring to? The Miranda thing or what Senators Graham and McCain are going on about?
The Miranda exception is not at all designed for warfare, and as far as I know there is no one within the current Administration even suggesting they might accede to what Graham/McCain suggest doing with regard to treating Tsarnaev as an enemy combatant.
I was refering to the enemy combatant issue, not the reading of Miranda rights.
Yeah, about that... :-/
I've decided to just treat Graham and McCain as if they're representing the Golden Dawn party for now.
This isn't a wacky terrorism law though, it was enacted in like 1994. It's more useful for things like the Atlantic Olympic Park bombing where there were comparatively few injuries but it's on the books and just as applicable for this.
All (reportedly) caught on video too. Should be a slam dunk for any legal intern worth their salt.