Political Opinion by John Liming
It has been reported that a couple of U.S. Senators – - – John McCain (R-Arizona) and Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) – - – have indicated their belief that the suspect captured in connection with the recent Boston Marathon Bombing should not receive the benefit of attorneys – - – counsel – - – Miranda rights – - - but should be treated the same as any enemy combatant regardless of American Citizenship.
As a blogger, I am pretty sure there all kinds of legal questions that one might ask in connection with how these kinds of cases should be handled and I am equally sure there is no limit to the number of legal eagles who will weigh in with their own opinions. I think I can pretty safely take that bet to the bank, don’t you?
I think we will see plenty of bleeding hearts invoking the Constitution to stand between all such suspects and what might be coming down the road and I think we will see an equal number of Americans who will shout and sing the song of vengeance and retribution in these kinds of cases.
I am not a lawyer. I don’t know how to manipulate the legal system. It is so damned complicated that I wouldn’t even want to try to come up with an answer as to how these kinds of things should go down.
I do have some personal feelings about Terrorism and terrorists and those who would attempt to kill our fellow citizens and cause great terror to come to a great American City and I guess that if there are any teeth in the First Amendment at all, I am allowed to express how I feel about such things in the words of this blog – - – so here goes:
In my personal opinion – - – The Constitution of The United States does not contain any expressed rights for one citizen to take the life of another or to cause physical harm to another or to terrorize anyone. I have never read such a right in the Constitution and I do not think it is in there. I think some nut flake might try to make a case for excusing such behavior under the “Right” to pursuit of Happiness clause – - – if someone were dumb enough to consider terrorizing others as an element legitimate to pursuit of happiness – - – and I hope there is no one crazy enough to think in those terms.
So I am thinking that if the Constitution does not grant the right to engage in acts of domestic terror, then domestic terrorism probably doesn’t have constitutional defense. But that is just my way of thinking and I caution my readers to take anything I say in this regard with a grain of salt because I am only expressing my own feelings and my feelings have no weight at Law whatsoever. I want to make that perfectly clear.
Down in my gut where my deepest passions run wild I don’t think America should pamper anybody who has shown an intent to kill, maim and terrorize American Citizens who were guilty of nothing except going about their daily business and enjoying their lives.
My next question is, “Isn’t that why America established a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay (GITMO) and isn’t that why we had all the big argument about the legality of water boarding and other such techniques for extracting intelligence? Is GITMO even relevant in domestic terrorism cases? Should it be made relevant? That is up to others who know about such things but I thought I would just ask the question.
Read More:
(2) http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-20/obama-decision-on-interrogating-suspect-draws-criticism
Posted by John Liming at 10:17 am
Related articles
- Should Boston bombing suspect get a Miranda warning? Debate follows Friday capture (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com)
- Does Dzhokhar Tsarnaev Deserve His Miranda Rights? (theatlanticwire.com)
- Graham, McCain call for Obama administration to hold bombing suspect as enemy combatant (al.com)
- Senators want Boston bombing suspect tried as enemy combatant (upi.com)
