IT’S DISAPPOINTING that President Obama decided Monday to treat the surviving Boston bombing suspect almost like a common criminal, as opposed to an enemy combatant.

There’s nothing common about the crime that Dzokhar Tsarnaev, 19, is accused of committing.

There’s also a tremendous need to find out more information from him. Critical questions include whether other bombs are out there, how the brothers became radicalized and whether they had help from or had links to domestic or foreign terrorist groups.

What’s needed are answers that trained interrogators from the intelligence community can elicit. That’s where having him declared an enemy combatant, at least temporarily, could be useful. It would give investigators time to question the suspect before he lawyers up and says nothing about anything.

The point isn’t building a case against the suspect to win a conviction in court. There looks to be more than enough evidence already without his testimony. Instead, the primary focus must be protecting America from terrorist attacks and saving lives.

Authorities believe that Mr. Tsarnaev and his older brother, Tamaerlan Tsarnaev, 26, were responsible the worse act of terrorism committed on American soil since 9/11. Three people and more than 170 others were wounded, many seriously, when two bombs exploded near the finish line of last Monday’s Boston Marathon. These explosive devices were designed to inflict maximum carnage on innocent people who packed the streets for this iconic event — and to frighten a nation.

Authorities also had evidence that the two brothers were likely planning other attacks, based on the cache of weapons they uncovered. The scene of last Friday’s gun battle between the two young men and Boston-area police officers, which ended in the elder brother’s death, was littered with unexploded bombs, officials said. One improvised explosive device was found in the car the two brothers were accused of hijacking.

Several U.S. senators, including Georgia’s Saxby Chambliss and South Carolina’s Lindsey Graham, argued over the weekend that Mr. Tsarnaev be treated like an enemy combatant who has limited rights. But the Obama administration disagreed.

While it’s true that several accused terrorists have been successfully prosecuted in civilian courts, including one who attempted to blow up an airplane in 2009 and another who attempted to blow up a truck in 2010 in Times Square, the Boston bombing is different. That’s because of a huge, compelling reason — it succeeded.

The Obama administration believes terrorism suspects arrested inside the United States should be handled exclusively in the criminal justice system. Here’s how it views Mr. Tsarnaev. He’s a naturalized American citizen who came to this country from Chechnya. which is part of Russia. He’s also a Muslim. But the United States isn’t in a state of war with all Muslim extremist groups. Only al-Qaida.

So unless there’s a clear link between him and al-Qaida, he can’t be treated an enemy combatant. He’s entitled to rights under the nation’s justice system, like any other citizen arrested and charged with a crime.

The problem with logic is that America is becoming a battlefield. Police said the area around last Friday’s shootout with the two suspects resembled one.

It would be nice to assume that the United States is immune from terror attacks that have plagued other nations. But such pie-in-the-sky thinking ignores reality — and a previous court ruling that opens the door to U.S. citizens being held.

During the Bush administration, the Supreme Court upheld the indefinite military detention of Yaser Esam Hamdi. He was an American citizen who was captured carrying a weapon on the Afghanistan battlefield. It doesn’t take a huge imagination to envision Americans carrying weapons in this country to kill other Americans. Just look at one of the several FBI videos and photos featuring a calm, cool Mr. Tsarnaev from last Monday.

Americans charged with committing common crimes deserve due process protections. But America can’t ignore the real, uncommon dangers that terrorists pose, especially those who have succeeded. That only emboldens potential terrorists. The main goals must be collecting intelligence — and preventing the next attack.

ADVISORY: Users are solely responsible for opinions they post here and for
following agreed-upon rules of civility. Posts and
comments do not reflect the views of this site. Posts and comments are
automatically checked for inappropriate language, but readers might find some
comments offensive or inaccurate. If you believe a comment violates our rules,
click the "Flag as offensive" link below the comment.

Well, I'm disappointed that the editors of this newspaper expected anything more out of Barack Hussein Obama. My only surprise is that Obama did not come out with another one of his famous "He (Tsarnaev) looks like me" declarations. When it comes to defense, we have one of the weakest presidents EVER.

The editorial demonstrates an ignorance of constitutional law and of interrogation and law enforcement in general. Perhaps if you folks would actually think about the issue and engage in original thought instead of merely parroting the reflexive criticisms of the right wing, you might actually contribute to the discussion. However, I can only conclude from this piece that you are hopelessly incapable of contributing in any meaningful way.

First of all, led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and local police, law enforcement solved the case quickly. The is no ongoing battle and no, America is not a battlefield despite your assertion. There is no "war" inside the borders of our nation.

Mr. Tsarnaev is a naturalized American citizen; under our laws, he cannot be tried in a military commission, which is a legal system reserved for aliens. To be held by the military without trial would at a minimum require a showing that he is associated with a declared enemy of the United States, such as Al Qaeda or the Taliban. There has been no evidence thus far linking them to such a group. Moreover, the apparent ease with which some wish to cavalierly do away with constitutional protections is troubling. Calling for the government to deny the rights of American citizens because we somehow find it more satisfying emotionally to deny them to the accused is fraught with danger. Governmental detention without trial and without recourse to counsel is not what our justice system is about. The Obama Administration is wise to ignore the calls to do otherwise. We are not the former Soviet Union or China or Iran. We don't throw citizens into the gulags where they are never heard from again without trial.

The government has taken its time furnishing him with counsel and Miranda warnings under the Public Safety exception, and it has been cautiously making sure that there are no other terrorists associated with the brothers who undertook these heinous crimes and no other associated, imminent attacks. That is what the Public Safety exception is all about and it is being used wisely. The editorial's cavalier approach would seek to deny constitutional protections based upon the feelings of some Senators and leave it to governmental discretion. That is a wrongheaded, foolish approach to rights and liberties. The intelligence gathering has not been thwarted and, the federal prosecutors will have leverage with the accused to offer a deal to spare him the death penalty in exchange for information if it seems that he may actually have something to tell them. To discount this in your editorial is foolish.

Mr. Tsarnaev, like all citizens accused of crimes, should and will be tried in the federal courts. He will be charged with terrorism under federal statutes, and will be represented by the federal public defender’s office. He also will no doubt be convicted, like literally hundreds of terrorists have been by our federal courts, and sentenced to death or life in prison. Just like the "Blind Sheik" and his terrorists who bombed the World Trade Center in 1993 were convicted in our federal courts back in 1994, if not put to death Mr. Tsarnaev will spend the rest of his days in one of our federal maximum security prisons. In short, our federal courts and prisons have done the job in the past, and have done so far more successfully than the military justice system which has been ineffective and produced only a small handful of convictions in terrorism cases.

The time to talk about doing away with constitutional protections is when there is an actual, imminent threat demonstrating a need for swift action without a moment to lose. Such an approach should always be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction or an emotional response.

Obama has bombed the hell out of al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan with drones, to a degree never imagined by his predecessor. He surged the troops in Afghanistan, so that they eventually numbered almost 5 times as many than were there when he took office. He has also unleashed drones in Yemen and other places in north Africa. Yet, we have right-wingers who see his aggressive defense against terrorism and whine and huff and puff and get all bent out of shape because we targeted an American who was involved in the support of terrorism overseas. Now, when he does the right thing and follows the law regarding the prosecution of an American citizen capable of arrest in the USA, he's called weak. Funny stuff. Seems the like many just follow whatever line of reasoning they can use at the moment to come up with a criticism, and some folks out there lap it up. :-)

overseas is meaningless if his lax policies towards radical Muslims leave us all vulnerable to death or severe maiming. He has a soft spot toward Al Islam that puts all of us at risk. Add this revolting PC towards Muslims and Jihad that has been forced on our FBI and other security agencies and you have a recipe for national disaster.

of the first amendment is free speech for people I don't agree with and speech I find distasteful, then the price of the 5th amendment is due process for people like Tsarnaev. He is a US citizen and that should be enough said on the matter of rights. Better question would be about the naturalization process and if reforms could have screened this guy any better.

I think your opinion is a lot of hot air. Obama has been aggressive against terrorism throughout his tenure. There's no "soft spot" in him for any terrorist of any stripe, and that includes radical Muslims. He has gone after the Taliban and al Qaeda rather relentlessly, more so than any prior administration.

... are designed to try members of enemy forces in time of war. They assert jurisdiction over combatants of an enemy force. Are we at war with Al-Qaeda? In Jan. 2010 President Obama said "We are at war with Al-Qaeda." That is his rationale for killing by drone including American citizens overseas operating with Al-Qaeda. It seems to me, you are splitting hairs by saying it is OK to kill an American citizen by drone but not to try him in a Military Tribunal.

Is Dzokhar Tsarnaev a member of Al-Qaeda? I don't know but you could sure hold him as such temporarily while you find out. Of course, Obama could always declare war on radical Islam which has already declared war on us. There is no question Dzokhar Tsarnaev is a radical Muslim.

Why try a terrorist in a Military Tribunal instead of a civilian court? First of all, there could be sensitive intelligence information that should not be revealed and publicised as it would be in a civilian court. Then there is also the potential for mischief by other terrorists at a civilian trial. It would be kind of hard for a terrorist to interrupt a trial at Gitmo or other secure military installation.

We are all too familiar with the three ring circus trials of O.J Simpson and Casey Anthony. It is cavalier to be dismissive of a Military Tribunal as an ignorance of constitutional law or right wing activism. It is not a black and white decision.

The issue is more complicated than I at first thought, but the sticking point to open the military tribunal option is were these men connected to an enemy of the US. Until such evidence is found, or believed to exist with some certainty, I think he has to be treated like any other domestic terrorist. There was a similar case in WWII known as operation Pastorious. Some of those participants were US citizens, but they were clearly acting in coordination with the German government who we had declared war on. They were tried in a tribunal.

...have convicted very few since their attempted usage after the terrorist attack in 2001. We also do not and cannot try American citizens in military commissions, only foreign nationals. You miss that fact Geechee. Even if he was to be designated an "enemy combatant", military tribunals are not authorized to try American citizen civilians, and cannot hold indefinitely one that is not operating as an agent of an enemy power or organization.

You cannot declare war on an idea. Radical Islam is an idea, an ideology, not an organization or a group. We cannot make up convenient categories so that we can play fast and loose with the provisions of our laws, otherwise we run the risk of that becoming the method by which constitutional protections are subverted for us all.

Finally, O.J. Simpson, Casey Anthony, have nothing to do with a case like this. Any intelligence information that cannot be made [filtered word] will be dealt with by the Federal judge in prior closed hearings. There is no risk.

Before the Bush Administration came into office and made a mess of our handling of terrorist trials, we quite regularly convicted them in our federal courts and we house hundreds in our federal prisons. Omar Abdel-Rahman and his co-conspirators were convicted in the First District Court for the Southern District of New York back in 1994. No circus, no intelligence leaks, no problems. They will never get out of prison. That's what the federal courts do all the time, and Obama is wise to let them do it again. In fact, he is required to do it.

he is a bulldog with remote, faceless, foreign nationals. But when it comes to people "in country", he is a pussycat. Ft. Hood was "workplace violence"? What a load of crap. That was Islamo-terrorism by the book. These two vermin that maimed hundreds and murdered 4 are "lone-wolf" with no assistance? More revolting BS.

Of course you can and Obama went half way in doing so in 2010 when he said "We are at war with Al-Qaeda." Al-Qaeda is a multi national stateless army. There are many who have called for war with Radical Islam and John McCain summed it up nicely. McCain said, "The West is in for a long, irregular confrontation not with terrorism, which is simply a tactic, but with Radical Islam."

There is something pathetically wrong with calling the Fort Hood attack by Major Nidal Hissan a "Work place violence incident," which is what the government report did. Hissan was yelling "Allah Akbar" (Islamic for God is the Greatest) when he killed 13 people and injured 30.

The sooner people recognize we are at war with Radical Islam the better off we all will be. You can not defeat an enemy you do not recognize.

gets tried and convicted. There is just one problem: Before any court proceedings begin (if they haven't already) we need to take the water boards out of the attic, dust them off and use them on this cold blooded killer in order to milk every item of intell we can get so that we can protect the citizens of our country from any future attacks that they may know about.

There is another disturbing factor that makes a tribunal look better than going through our justice system. We have an unrepentant terrorist sitting in a jail in Fort Hood Texas. Barrack Hussein Obama decided that he would be tried in a civilian court because the he Obama the "sainted and all knowing one" decided that what happened at Fort Hood was not a terrorist act but "work place violence" How many more years will it take for his victims to see justice done. His defense team is doing everything they can think of to delay his trial. The last argument I read about is he refuses to shave his beard. Nobody should care about his beard. If he is to be tried in a civilian court lets get to and put him to death or start his life time prison term.

And because the administration doesn't want to call what happened at Fort Hood a terrorist act , his victims can not receive a purple heart because the sainted one and his administration refuse to label what happened at Fort Hood an act of terror.

You cannot try him as an enemy combatant unless he is actually an enemy combatant under the present Military Commissions Act. Sen. Lindsay Graham, one of the authors of the Act, has stated that clearly too.

You are all wrong about Taliban John--John Lindh--was tried in Federal Court, not in a military tribunal, and he is in a federal prison.

You can repeat yourself and try to convince yourself, but you cannot declare war on an idea or on an ideology. al Qaeda at least has some structure, and some of its members are identifiable. "Radical Islam" is not a group, it is an ideology. It can't be done.

You don't have a problem quoting Sen. Lindsey Graham if you think it helps your point. Graham has also said in a recent interview with Newsmax TV, "The Obama Administration is making America less safe by not acknowledging we are at war with radical Islam."

You can repeat yourself and try to convince yourself war can not be declared on radical Islam but others, including Sen. John McCain and Sen. Lindsey Graham disagree with you.

...that is a pretty insipid reply. Under Obama the USA has been going after terrorists with a ferocity that has never before been maintained and that has not let up since day one. In his first year in office we unleashed more drones on al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan that were utilized in the entire Bush Administration. Since then, the operations have become even larger and more complex. And you think that is a joke, eh? Pretty funny.

Is right about the Military Commissions, and so am I. What he says about us "being at war with radical Islam" can in no way be turned into making any muslim that commits a terrorist offense, even if a citizen, an enemy combatant. Our law requires proof of things that are real, not made up, convenient excuses. Think a little bit Geechee, perhaps we can declare that our "War on Drugs" is also a real war, and hold people in jails without counsel and without trial for dealing dope. Maybe we can declare a war on whatever ideology becomes extremely unpopular, and deny basic constitutional protections for people caught subscribing to whatever that idea or ideology might be...like they do in China, or did in Soviet Russia? That is where we are led when we declare war on how people think and believe.

I know what I don't know, and I don't know much about this, but it appears you can try citizens in a military tribunal. Google Herbert Haupt. Tried and executed in less than 60 days. He was clearly working with a declared enemy though.

I'm talking specifically about your repeated comments that you could not declare war on radical Islam. Both John McCain and Lindsey Graham have called for war on radical Islam. Now you can try and deflect and wiggle and squirm but the fact is they are in direct opposition to your position.

was tried during WWII for clearly working for Germany. So, he was actually engaged in the service of a foreign power with whom we were at war. In addition, the Military Commissions Act became law in 2009. You cannot try U.S. citizens under the Act, especially someone such as the fellow currently in custody, who was not working for any identifiable power. So Haupt was tried under different circumstances and different laws.

Show me where Senator Graham states: "Any muslim radical that is caught performing a terrorist act, even one that is a U.S. citizen, may be tried as an enemy combatant because we are at war with radical islamists." Guess what, you won't find anyone that has any knowledge of our law that says that, and especially not Graham. Graham has clearly stated that we cannot try the young man before the military commissions. Why does he say that? Because the young man is not in the service of an identifiable organization or foreign power with whom we are at war. But Geechee, he is a radical Islamist, so what's the problem? The problem is that under our law more is required than a showing that someone maintains an ideology. They must belong to an identifiable organization or foreign power. So, I am not deflecting, rather I am pointing out that your reasoning is bogus. We cannot use a figurative war with an ideology as a basis under our law to justify a finding that someone is working for a foreign power or identified terrorist organization. The evidentiary showing required is an actual organization, not a figurative one. McCain and Graham were speaking about a concept of a war, not trying to lay an evidentiary foundation at a hearing. You are mixing apples and oranges.

If the 2009 law would prevent Haupt from being tried in a military tribunal, then it went too far. With today's unconventional warfare the enemy is not always a sovereign nation. Laws need to allow for this. When an act is carried out in support of a foreign enemy like radical Islamic terrorists we should be able to deal with it differently than the guy who robs a bank. What happens when the attack is biological or God forbid nuclear? Somehow the same federal courts that handle tax evasion just don't seem appropriate.

Your comment is so far off the wall it isn't in the same reality as the rest of us. While I was discussing Military Commissions, you asserted that we can declare war upon radical islam in that context. For the purposes of Military Commissions and defining enemy combatants and the like, we clearly cannot use any supposed declaration of war against radical islam as a basis for the usage of the military tribunals. That is because it is a figurative war that does not have a definable enemy. That what I was talking about. You apparently have been off in another land talking to yourself. Let me know when you come back.

Captain quoting W "The same folks that are bombing innocent people in Iraq were the ones who attacked us in America on September the 11th." --Washington, D.C., July 12, 2007 Ain't that the truth." You and I don't agree on much, but I like your wit.

So Bush took a surplus and turned it into the largest deficit ever. And what has Obama done with the deficit in less than 4 years. Some on this forum think I'm delusional but I never thought I'd see not one but two weirdo's from Mars (because you certainly are not living on this planet)at one time on this thread. I think both of you guys need to get your medication re evaluated.

All of this talk about 9-11 being an inside job doesn't even deserve the time it takes to read such nonsense. Go back to Mars.

I don't mind telling you that you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Telling me that someone says we should declare a war on radical Islam when I am discussing the applicability of Military Commissions evinces a complete misunderstanding of the subject matter. Want to try again? Tell me how this has any bearing on Military Commissions, which is what I was talking about in reference to it?

I'm not sure what the reference to July 12, 2007 means but you don't need to explain it to me. If I want to know bad enough I'll either google it or ask someone who has some common sense. I've had enough nonsense for one night.

Mr. Silly, it is not so much what you say when you get into a debate with someone, it is how you say it. I didn't join in your and Geechee's debate because my knowledge is limited about the language used in declaring war with Islamic jihadists etc. But you always want to come off as being seen as someone who is so much smarter than anyone else on here. I hate to inform you but there are many smart men and women (I'm not referring to myself) on this board. And I am not too proud to say sometimes I learn something from some of others that are more "schooled" on some subjects than I am. And actually I am happy to read what someone else posts when they do so in a courteous manner.

I am sorry. I just realized I made a mistake. You are not who I was referring as being from Mars. that is where Capt. lives except when he comes down to earth long enough to spew all of that absurdity about 9-11. I read a lot of his/her post the other night and finally just had to stop. I thought I was also talking to one other person because I think someone said something similar the other day. My mistake and I do apologize. As far as I know (now that I went back up and looked)Craptcruzan is the only Martian tonight.

Had enough for one night. Good night. Capt. maybe if you get a good nights sleep you'll see things as they should be when you wake up refreshed.

I don't mind telling you haven't the foggiest idea what you are talking about; especially when it comes to military matters. Why aren't you blaming Bush for the contunued terrorist hunt with a ferocity that has never before been maintained and that has not let up since day one? Obama has done that with the economy. Also, such a typical response from a Clinton apologist. They even handed him a CIA brief a month before warning of Bin Laden attacks. What did he do? (Ask Monica) See you can change the names and get the same insipid reply!

Suits on legal interpretations to be valid, considering that he is a lawyer by profession. However, after a rendering of his expert opinion on gun laws, I realized that he had absolutely no idea of what he was talking about. Eloquent misinformation. I suppose that's why they "practice" law, because they just can't get it right. Believe half of what you see, and none of what you hear.

The way I see it Belle is that my opinion is usually contrary to the opinions of most of those that post on these forums. Because of that, people are irritated with whatever I have said from the outset. While I might tell people that they are wrong or are failing to comprehend something, I will tell them WHY I think they are wrong and engage in a discussion. I don't usually just offer an insult and nothing more like is often directed to me. Yeah I will go on to offer an opinion and I am not afraid to back up what I say with reference to sources. If that is coming off like I am smarter than everyone else, then I plead guilty. I sometimes engage in a little goofy sarcasm or make fun of the argument presented by someone else in order to make a point, and I guess that tends to anger some. :-)

Please take a look at the posts aimed at me here. Most of them are 90% insults with very little discussion of the actual issue. In comparison to the number of insults I receive, the zingers I pitch back are rather limited. I will, however, be careful not to insult you Belle in the future. I did not intend to do so last time, and I will be true to my word not to do so again.

The administration did get this one right. Unfortunately, the "Public Safety" exemption clause doesn't allow for as much as Silly would have everyone believe. Once the interrogation has concluded that there aren't anymore undetonated bombs, thus no further "immediate" risk to the public, it has to end. It doesn't allow further interrogation as to whether he was acting alone or affiliated with a specific "terror group". At this point he is given his Miranda rights and lawyers up. So basically we are left with having to make a deal with a mass murderer to obtain any further useful information. This is the real travesty of the matter. Under no circumstances, should the death penalty be traded for information.

point of clarification. Silly states "there is no war within our borders"

Well, in 2007, the US Justice Department , during a large teroorism financing trial in Dallas, Texas, entered into evidence a Muslim Brotherhood plan that calls for a "grand jihad" against America. Defense attorneys for the Holy Land Foundation, an Islamic organization accused of funding terrorism, agreed that this was a genuine Muslim Brotherhood document. The plan calls for "sabotaging" America from within, and lists 29 American organizations that are linked to the Muslim Brotherhood. Some of these are are ISNA, Islamic Society of North America, etc..

I basically agree with your statement. However, the Administration is relying upon an interpretation of the public safety exception to Miranda in a case which gives them a bit more leeway--it allows them to also try to investigate whether there are any imminent plots to commit more terrorist attacks and not just determine whether there are any bombs left around that have not yet exploded. They have to be careful not to stretch it too far, but it does give them a bit more time.

In addition, they have the leverage provided by the federal death penalty statute in this case. The government can use the chip of sparing him capital punishment to bargain with this kid if it appears he has any useful information that would justify doing so. That is actually a lot of leverage.

Thank you for your consideration. I did accept your apology last week even though I may not have acknowledged it. I'm trying to learn to put things like this forum into perspective. Posting on this website doesn't define us. It is just something we do because it is interesting. Unfortunately it can get too heated at times. We often take all of this too seriously and we shouldn't. I have a lot going on in my life as I am sure you probably do as well that is not related to this forum. I meant what I said earlier. I actually learn things from other posters.

We are all different people with different ideas. It sure would be a boring world if we all had the same thoughts and opinions. But we don't and that is what makes it interesting. I must be able to stand the heat because I am still in the kitchen. But thank you for the olive branch.