Heard Rudy G. say this morning that he agrees with a couple senators who want to charge the bomber as an enemy combatant which suspends many, maybe all, of the rights normally granted.

 

I figured they were pushing that for the death penalty. In Massachusetts they do not have the death penalty.

 

 

From what Mayor G was saying it sounded as though that as an enemy combatant they can hold him as long as they want, without a lawyer and just keep on asking him questions. He explained that they could do that pretty much as long as they felt he was withholding information, was a threat or not viewed as being a peaceful person towards the US(generic breakdown). So essentially an enemy combatant has no 6th amendment rights at all. I'm all for him being processed as an enemy combatant sounds like the best of both worlds for the US, he has to live through hell moving forward while getting as much useful info out of him as is possible.

Heard Rudy G. say this morning that he agrees with a couple senators who want to charge the bomber as an enemy combatant which suspends many, maybe all, of the rights normally granted.

 

I don't see how one can make that leap.

A closer view of the shootout.

 

Gunfire in Watertown: An eyewitness account - latimes.com

I don't see how one can make that leap.

 

Which leap? Rudy G is a former US Attorney.

Which leap? Rudy G is a former US Attorney.

 

What is the basis?

What is the basis?

 

That he's a terrorist?

I don't see how one can make that leap.

 

I can, the war on terror paints with a wide brush and at this point it appears that a link to terrorist organizations is a possibility. At that point all terrorists can be considered enemy combatants.

I figured they were pushing that for the death penalty. In Massachusetts they do not have the death penalty.

 

Federal charges will be brought, like the guy in Oklahoma.

Federal charges will be brought, like the guy in Oklahoma.

 

I've always been curious on this but at what point do state charges cross over into federal ones? I know obviously criminal activity across state lines can bring federal charges but what determines if one should be brought up with federal charges as opposed to just state ones?

I've always been curious on this but at what point do state charges cross over into federal ones? I know obviously criminal activity across state lines can bring federal charges but what determines if one should be brought up with federal charges as opposed to just state ones?

 

I'd like to know that also, maybe our legal minds on here can explain it.

That he's a terrorist?

 

I haven't kept up on his past. Has this bombing been linked to a foreign enemy? If not, I struggle to called it a terrorist act in the sense that would allow for the waiver of rights that are being mentioned.

I don't see how one can make that leap.

 

I agree, and it's a dangerous slippery slope.

 

I agree, and it's a dangerous slippery slope.

 

Definitely agree its a VERY slippery slope...

My guess is how they treat him will depend on what they can establish before he's able to be questioned. You can bet FBI and state department are working with their contacts at warp speed.

My guess is how they treat him will depend on what they can establish before he's able to be questioned. You can bet FBI and state department are working with their contacts at warp speed.

 

As well as asking the Feds who interviewed his brother why they didn't see the danger when Russia tried to warn us about him.