Tsarnaev: Accused criminal, or enemy combatant?

The Obama administration will treat Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as a “common criminal,” not as an enemy combatant who waged war against Americans.

Now that the streets of Boston are safe again, said The Wall Street Journal in an editorial, the Obama administration has decided to treat the only surviving suspect in the terror attack, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, as a “common criminal.” Rather than being declared an enemy combatant who waged war against Americans—killing three Boston Marathon spectators and executing a police officer in Cambridge—he will instead be prosecuted through the criminal justice system. This is a foolish mistake. Yes, the administration did use the “public safety exception” to the Miranda rule, and sent a special team to interrogate Tsarnaev about possible connections to other Islamic extremists before telling him of his legal right to remain silent and get an attorney. But why give an accused terrorist these rights at all, instead of treating him like a prisoner of war? “Boylston Street sure looked like a battlefield” after the marathon bombing, and so did Cambridge during the ensuing manhunt and firefight. As Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina said this week, “We’re at war. This idea that the only way we can question [Dzhokhar] about national security matters is to go through his lawyer—that is absolutely crazy.”

Graham should know better, said Emily Bazelon in Slate.com. Dzhokhar is a U.S. citizen, and the 2009 Military Commissions Act—which Graham wrote—specifically forbids military trials of U.S. citizens. An “enemy combatant” has to be a foreign national associated with al Qaida and associated terrorist groups. For Obama to designate Dzhokhar an enemy combatant in defiance of the law, and send him to some hellhole for prolonged interrogation, “would be a truly scary grab for executive power.” It would also be completely unnecessary, said Erwin Chemerinsky in the Los Angeles Times. The federal court system has successfully prosecuted and jailed nearly 500 terrorists, while military commissions have gotten only seven convictions. In fact, our criminal justice system has been prosecuting terrorists for more than a century, from the anarchists of the early 1900s to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Yet whenever there is some serious threat, “people have proposed abridging civil liberties.” Those panicky demands must be refused. “There is no exception in the Constitution for especially horrible crimes or for ones that can be labeled terrorism.”

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE
https://cdn.mos.cms.futurecdn.net/flexiimages/jacafc5zvs1692883516.jpg

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up
Explore More
To continue reading this article...
Continue reading this article and get limited website access each month.
Get unlimited website access, exclusive newsletters plus much more.
Cancel or pause at any time.
Already a subscriber to The Week?
Not sure which email you used for your subscription? Contact us