An (Over) Dramatic Arrest

Here’s a video the Massachusetts state police released of the events leading up to the arrest of the younger Tsarnaev brother. It’s unclear exactly how it was edited, and why this particular segment was released, but there are multiple versions of this same three minutes being distributed, so it’s most likely not Russia Today’s own version.

Early on you’ll see the armored vehicle begin to expose the suspect by removing the tarp from the boat. Then soon after and within the span of less than a minute, four grenades are launched into the boat.

Here’s another short video, one demonstrating a standard concussion grenade, likely similar to the four thrown at Tsarnaev. Note the ear and eye protection, the warnings from the instructor, and the distance from which they are to the grenade.

I know we’re all supposed to feel no remorse for the kid, but this is overkill. He was cornered, surrounded, outgunned, exhausted, and wounded. Why four grenades were used in rapid succession, in a confined space, is beyond me.

Prudence would suggest that capturing him alive, if possible, should be a priority. After all, they can’t interrogate a corpse, and the better health he is in the more quickly and effectively they glean information from him. But, and I think this is more important, justice demands that he be taken alive and not tormented in such a way.

He is only a suspect and at this point there is little more than the word of the police that he is one of those responsible for the attack. If he’s guilty, let the state prove it in court. I understand that some senators are calling for him to be tried in federal court, presumably so prosecutors can seek the death penalty (Massachusetts does not provide for capital punishment).

I disagree with this too, as I oppose the death penalty. I also see no legitimate reason not try the case in a state court, since such crimes ought to be handled by the states. The government decided to suspend reading Miranda rights to Tsarnaev, a move that has been somewhat controversial. Some are surprised by this, but considering the Bill of Rights was suspended in order to try to capture him, it shouldn’t be surprising.

The Onion Drops the Ball

The Onion usually has pretty accurate reporting. Unfortunately, they dropped the ball on this one. This article suggested 28% of Americans are okay with being torn apart by drones; the actual poll numbers suggest it’s closer to 80%.

The Right is Wrong on al-Awlaki: The Martin/Zimmerman Case Proves It

In the past two weeks the death of Trayvon Martin has been unavoidable for anyone consuming U.S. news media. The incident has of course become widely politicized. The left has generally declared, or at least implied, that George Zimmerman is a cold-blooded murderer and racist, while the right has been less quick to issue judgment, admonishing everyone to wait for a trial before issuing a conviction.

It is of course instructive to see how the death of Trayvon Martin has been covered by the media and pundit class, vis. a vis. the deaths of Anwar al-Awlaki and his 16 year-old son, Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. With but a few exceptions, the left ignored their assassinations, as if they would go away. There were exceptions, of course.

The right however praised those murders. Speaking on the senior al-Awlaki, Bill O’Reilly said he was a “vicious terrorist who got exactly what he deserved.” The editors of National Review had no problem with such an arrangement either.

So here we have the progressive left demanding justice for what they see as a clear-cut case, despite little concrete evidence and at the very least, no criminal charges (yet). When virtually the same situation existed last year, such a murder as described above was all but ignored. No protests, no marches, no endless analysis or extended coverage by 24 hour news networks.

On the right, conservatives have been equally inconsistent. Now they’re telling everyone to wait for a trial before jumping to conclusions on Zimmerman’s guilt. But last year all it took was for the president to assure everyone that who he’d chosen to have killed was a really bad guy, and there was no need for a trial. The right seemed to be saying “due process is outmoded; trust the administration, they’ve got this one. But only on this issue, mind you. Everything else they say is a lie, a half-truth, demagoguery, or a political ruse.”

Just don’t call out the right on this one.

But that’s exactly what I did this morning. Greg Knapp was covering both issues, speaking on the Martin/Zimmerman case and reading listener e-mails on the air. One listener declared that al-Awlaki was guilty of treason (despite no actual evidence, charges, trial, conviction, or appeals process). I called in and got through, noting the seeming dissonance from many on the right.

I was told I had it all wrong, that because al-Awlaki was a known terrorist and al-Qaeda member, it wasn’t an assassination, and al-Awlaki didn’t need a trial to be found guilty. The evidence is on the internet. He admitted to being a terrorist.

The logic of such an argument is so flawed it might be humorous were we not discussing death and murder. Of course the constitution is quite clear on the subject of treason: “No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.”

The 5^th Amendment also makes it abundantly clear: “due process of law” is required before any person is “deprived of life, liberty, or property.” In either case a trial must occur.

The government must present two credible witnesses to testify to the act of treason, or the defendant must confess in open court. The fact that the constitution is explicit in this regard seemed to frustrate Knapp. He again told me I was wrong, as if merely saying so makes it factual. I countered by saying I didn’t write the law, someone else did and the states ratified it. Like it or not, that’s the law.

As is standard, I was cut off before I could elaborate. Given the opportunity, I would have argued that if the evidence were so overwhelming in favor of guilt, why didn’t the government just bring charges against Mr. al-Awlaki before having him killed and make a slam dunk case of it? I suspect I would have been told again that I was “wrong.”

Who Wants To Be Caesar: CBS News/National Journal Edition

What was called a debate on Saturday was nothing if not a good barometer of just how far gone the rule of law is in the United States. Of all those asked, including Bachmann, Gingrich, Romney, Perry, Cain, and Santorum, each suggested they would initiate war against Iran to prevent her from acquiring a nuclear weapon. It was as if each was posturing to see who could be the hawkiest-hawk on stage. A popular method for most seemed to be imposing even more brutal trade sanctions than currently exist. Barring that, covert operatives who would provide the U.S. with “deniability,” in the words of Gingrich, would be just fine too.

Except for Ron Paul, none of them paid even customary lip service to the war-making authority vested in congress. Each acted as if they were being interviewed for the Throne, rather than a man (or woman) bound “from mischief by the chains of the constitution.” No wonder the current office holder has no qualms about assassinating individuals far from any battlefield. Look at those who want his job.

Speaking of extra-judicial killing (EJK), Gingrich showed just how power-crazed the warmongers have become. He was outright indignant when asked whether the secret death court, using secret information, acting without any oversight, with no opportunity for the accused to present evidence, giving a secret authorization to the president to kill a man without charges, constituted due process. Given how Obama spewed hollow rhetoric about civil liberties, and then immediately surpassed Bush’s crimes, one can only imagine the horror a Gingrich presidency would bring upon the world.

Secret death courts, covert assassinations, the intentional starvation of hundreds of thousands of people; this is the policy platform of a tyrant. It is tragic on so many levels: the people cheer it, the moderators never challenge it, and reporters virtually never ask questions. Only in extremely rare cases, such as Jake Tapper asking about the al-Awlaki killing, do the media ever suspend their subservience to the state.

Will people never wake up to this? Anything a government will do to other nations or their people it will also do to its own subjects. All that has to happen is for the people to be declared enemies, and the very acts they once cheered will be used against them.

…and I said nothing, because I wasn’t a ‘terrorist’…

This morning it was reported that Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan, both citizens of the U.S., were killed in Yemen by U.S. drones. For nearly two years al-Awlaki was targeted by the Obama administration, which had authorized his assassination, despite not having charged him with any crime, let alone convicted him in a court of law. His father, Nasser al-Awlaki, had filled suit with the DOJ in order to prevent his son’s killing, but a judge dismissed the case on procedural grounds.

Anderson Cooper interviewed Jeffrey Toobin on his show, asking under what legal justification the U.S. could have summarily killed one of its citizens, given a legal ban on assassinations. Toobin’s response was essentially that under the authorization of force, the U.S. is fighting al-Qaeda, and al-Awlaki was a member of al-Qaeda, therefore “this guy was fair game under our laws.” As for the prohibition on assassinations, Toobin says “it’s pretty much irrelevant at this point,” because he argues, “so many presidents have figured out ways around it.”

There is so much here to refute. The authorization of force is not a declaration of war, and therefore military action is not pursuant to the constitution’s delegation of war-making powers. Assuming it was, simply for the sake of argument, where in that bill did it repeal the 5th Amendment? It’s not even clear that he was in fact a member of al-Qaeda, as reported in Der Spiegel. And because no one really follows the rules anyway, so they don’t matter, is hardly a sound argument.

The executive branch and members of the media are assuring us all that he was a bad guy. After all he was a terrorist, you know. He spoke out in support of Nadal Hassan, the military officer accused of killing thirteen soldiers at Fort Bliss. He was said to have supported the efforts of those trying to ship bombs packed inside toner cartridges. The latest reports are that his next plans included the use of chemical weapons.

So what? As cruel and inhuman as it is, praising the deaths of other humans is not the same as committing the crimes against them. Furthermore, there is no evidence that al-Awlaki had anything to do with any other attacks. From watching the news, listening to the radio, and reading reports online, one might gather that reason free from emotion is lost in this country. Just as with Osama bin Laden, no one seems to consider the precedence being set, or the example being shown around the world.

How might Americans react if a Russian aircraft stationed in Mexico routinely launched missiles into a Dallas suburb, in an effort to kill a Russian citizen accused of no crime? What sort of reaction might we expect the families of the murdered to have? Will they praise Americans as just and good, or will they resent their presence, and forever seek vengeance? The questions seem to answer themselves. For more on this topic, see Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com and Michael Ratner of The Guardian.

 

Update:

I wrote the following comment on an article from the daily beast:

First, they starved the Iraqi people, and I said nothing because I was not Iraqi; 
Then, they tortured the Afghans, and I said nothing because I was not an Afghan; 
Then, they bombed Pakistan, and I said nothing because I was not from Pakistan; 
Then, they killed a “terrorist,” and I said nothing because I was not a “terrorist;” 
Then, they came for me….

But that’s not the half of it; it’s far worse. It’s one thing for people to be indifferent to the bloodshed and wanton disregard for justice, but instead they cheer it.