As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Carney: Tsarnaev Not an “Enemy Combatant”

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney today said the Obama administration does not consider accused terrorist Dzhokar Tsarnaev to be an enemy combatant and that he will be tried in civilian court.

“He will not be treated as an enemy combatant,” Carney said during today’s afternoon briefing. “We will prosecute this terrorist through our civilian system of justice.”

Carney indicated Attorney General Eric Holder made the call and that the administration’s national security officials support him.

The decision to not treat Tsarnaev, a U.S. citizen, as a war prisoner means he will be entitled to the legal protections of the U.S. justice system, which are more robust than what he would have faced under military justice.

Tsarnaev has been charged with using a weapon of mass destruction to kill.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

69 Responses to Carney: Tsarnaev Not an “Enemy Combatant”

  1. When it comes to ‘Terrorism’ I TRUST NOTHING coming from Dear Leader Obama & his Regime.
    Obama hates “America” and has no clue or interest in “National Security” (Gitmo, drone strikes, Ft. Hood, Benghazi, Boston…)

  2. Obama will treat Dzhokar Tsarnaev just as Bill Ayers was treated.

    I wonder if some future President (near future?) will treat Dzhokar Tsarnaev like Obama treats Bill Ayers.

  3. Did anyone really not expect this.?
    If this administration was in 1941, the pilots of Imperial Japan bombing Pearl Harbor would be treated as non-combatants, same if Hitler had invaded the US and not Poland.

  4. Causes of Citizenship Loss
    U.S. citizens are subject to loss of citizenship if they perform certain acts voluntarily and with the intention to relinquish U.S. citizenship. These acts include:

    Obtaining naturalization in a foreign state;
    Taking an oath, affirmation or other formal declaration to a foreign state or its political subdivisions;
    Entering or serving in the armed forces of a foreign state engaged in hostilities against the U.S. or serving as a commissioned or non-commissioned officer in the armed forces of a foreign state;
    Accepting employment with a foreign government if (a) one has the nationality of that foreign state or (b) a declaration of allegiance is required in accepting the position;
    Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship before a U.S. consular officer outside the United States;
    Formally renouncing U.S. citizenship within the U.S. (but only “in time of war”);
    Conviction for an act of treason.

    Source: http://hamilton.usconsulate.gov/index.html

    Try the SOB for TREASON if nothing else.

  5. It is the same misguided, myopic view that Clinton took in 1993 with the WTC bombing. “It’s a criminal act” not a terrorist attack. We all know what happened after that. The Cole bombing and then 9/11.

    Brokaw says that the US may have actually caused the Boston Massacre with our drone policies, that might be true. But, treating Tsarnaev as a civilian, criminal defendant will only show the world, again, that America has become a straw dog.

    The only upside to this would be if Tsarnaev gets a REALLY GOOD attorney, and turns the trial into a trial about Obama’s drone and foreign policy. If that starts to happen, watch this end up being moved to Gitmo, or Tsarnaev meeting an untimely end while in custody.

    While not being a lawyer myself, and having never played one on TV, I do have a twitch of common sense, and if I was representing Tsarnaev I would definitely push the defense that this administration, via its policies and surrogates (the House of Saud) emotionally pushed these young men to a breaking point, where they could only see one option, and that was to take the offensive against the US. It was not their fault that they did what they did, but rather a reaction to the corrupt policies of the Obama administration and its wonton killing of civilians by hellfire missiles launched by video game drones.

  6. It’s still too early to determine what to do with him, but my gut instinct is you treat him like a spy. You treat him like Bradley Manning, but with a greater degree of caution since he has proven violent.

  7. Yeah, this jihadist picked the right time to perform his evil act of terror. Our leaderless, gutless government will never admit this man is an Islamic jihadist. Justice delayed is justice denied, and this is just another Nidal Hasan trial in the making. I prefer the punishment Ted Nugent suggested in his article “Time To Stretch Neck Of Jihadist Punk”.

  8. My neighbor suggested that the distraught father of the dead little boy, the daughter who had her leg amupated, and a wife with brain damage be given a chainsaw to conduct the interrogation of the terrorist.

  9. Do any of you understand the law? He is an American citizen who committed crimes on American, by these standards he is guaranteed a fair trial just like you and I. Anything else would be a violation of the constitution that this nation was founded on.

    • All of us regulars here do understand the law kk, and the individual rights that goes with prosecuting a criminal under US law. However the founding fathers never had to deal with terrorists hence no laws or appropriate penalties were ever enacted by our govt until after incidents occurred.. We all agree our justice system is not perfect, but it’s hard for us to understand why our govt can not agree that this heinous act was not conducted by terrorists (foreign or domestic).

    • The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

      It is not a national suicide pact.

      It is one thing to grant rights to a uniformed hostile foreigner; it is quite another to grant rights to enemies who know our laws, and are intent on using our liberties against us.

      If his citizenship is fraudulent–and I submit that having terroristic plans in his heart makes his citizenship fraudulent–then he is an enemy combatant, and US protections do not apply. And since Chechnya has not signed the Geneva Convention, that doesn’t apply, either.

      If this administration actually were serious about supporting and defending the Constitution, they would not be treating this guy like some high body count bank robber. He would be treated like the existential threat to American liberty that he and his cause represent.

  10. I have heard ‘experts’ over the weekend give the pros and cons of federal civil trial vs. military tribunal, some of those experts being conservative. It will depend on how the government charges him. If for terrorism, fine, but knowing the Obama administration, if for a public disturbance, no. The pros and cons of a civil trial are that convictions are obtained but they are mostly life imprisonment, not capital punishment. The cons of a military tribunal are that there is no record on life vs. death, no record period I think, and that the Supreme Court may rule them unconstitutional on some grounds. In this man’s case, unless you can prove that he was in the pay of a specific country and try him for treason, you have to consider him a US citizen.

    In theory I don’t object to the decision, but as I say, knowing that it is coming from the Obama DoJ makes me wary.

    • In my opinion, we should follow the money before finalizing charges against this Islamic terrorist. If it can be proved he was receiving financial support from terrorist groups or related organizations, he can be brought up on charges of treason.

      • I would think so too, but I am not a lawyer, Susan, and I’m wondering if a suspect has to be charged with something within a certain time period to hold him. Right now they’ve charged him with use of a weapon of mass destruction. I don’t know if they could add charges later. I don’t see why not.

        I read on the Blaze that they haven’t charged him with the murder of the MIT police officer either. Maybe that will come later and be handled separately.

      • one problem out there Susan is that the money trail may have been conducted in cash. It can take months to years to sift through all the information currently at hand.

          • It may be the case for most of their living expenses. The brother may be a bit different as he was still in college. It’s a good starting point. Will be a bit before we hear more on the money side.

  11. I drilled down from Drudge to research these comments: http://ruthobrien.org/a-day-of-terror/

    (a portion of them)

    “The United States that I love hunts down terrorists AND follows human rights during capture. Giving the worst criminal or terrorist the most dignity during captivity shows why we should not be feared as a nation and is the best antidote to terrorism.

    We accept difference, as a nation, and we should champion our greatest strength – inclusivity – at these extreme moments if we want the character of the United States not to be judged harshly by the global community. Once all the adrenaline subsides, I hope we will all be witnesses at the Internal Affairs investigation about undue force.”

    I sincerely hope Prof. O’Brien never experiences the fear a police officer has to deal with when apprehending a violent suspect, particularly one who was involved in the death of one police officer and the possible death of another. This is not television, a movie or a play, Professor. Academics such as you are not called upon by society to apprehend such threats to the public and I, for one, am thankful.

    • I agree Rick, she has never walked the walk. I am surprised she did not admonish the officers for not pulling the brother out of the way when the SUV tried to run them over.

      I would call her an “armchair QB”. Lots of them out there. Tinfoil hat’ers also.

    • Rick, you are most definitely, a kinder man than I am a woman. I read the perfessor’s comments earlier today and pondered just the opposite.

  12. This is not too off-topic but related: does anyone remember the ‘man on the roof’? Video and photographs showed a single man watching the event from a roof top. I’d like to know if law enforcement is still trying to trace this person.

  13. What gives greater pleasure to a living person; the knowledge that a pusillanimous prosecutor gives you greater benefit of law than you gave any of your victims or whether your deceased brother is enjoying his 72 virgins in paradise?

  14. Am I to understand that a pressure cooker stuffed with explosives and nails etc. is now a WMD?

    No wonder the left was so opposed to Bush’s claim of WMDs in Iraq — not a pressure cooker in sight.

    By the time this Administration decides how to deal with this, the young Tsarnaev will be giving lectures on How to cook with a Pressure Cooker with a ten recipe handout.

    Insane