FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

For Accused Boston Bomber, Rule of Law Is the Right Choice

by CHRIS EDELSON

Since 9/11, there have been two main schools of thought when it comes to presidential power.  Some argue that the president must be able to do whatever is necessary to defend the nation–whether that means ordering secret electronic surveillance in violation of federal criminal law, unilaterally making the rules for indefinite detention without trial at Guantanamo, or authorizing the killing of U.S citizens without judicial hearing.  Others argue that the president is constrained by the rule of law.  In an emergency, the president can act unilaterally, subject to retroactive congressional approval.  Otherwise, our constitutional system of checks and balances requires cooperation with the other branches of government.  Even in the emergency scenario, when presidents must initially act without prior approval, they acknowledge that they are acting within a system of rules and limited power by seeking congressional approval as soon as possible (as Lincoln did at the beginning of the Civil War).

President Obama has not always found himself in the rule of law camp.  When it comes to targeted killing, the decision to authorize military action in Libya without congressional approval, or the frequent use of the state secrets privilege to avoid accountability, in many ways the Obama administration has built on the Bush-Cheney legacy of unrestrained presidential power.  With the decision to file criminal charges against Dzohokhar Tsarnaev, however, the Obama administration is getting it right.

Not everyone agrees.  In a joint statement, four  members of Congress, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), and Rep. Peter King (R-NY), said Tsarnaev “clearly is a good candidate for enemy combatant status.  We do not want this suspect to remain silent.”  The first claim is not true and the second is misleading.  There is no evidence that Tsarneav meets the legal definition of enemy combatant (to the extent that the term itself has coherent legal meaning). Under the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act that Graham and the three other members on the joint statement all voted for, a prisoner is only eligible for indefinite detention if he is “a person who was a part of or substantially supported Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners.”  As of now, there is simply no evidence that Tsarnaev would meet this definition.

Even if that changed, and some evidence showed a tie between the younger Tsarnaev and Al Qaeda or associated forces, holding him as an enemy combatant would be a mistake.  The term itself was invented as a way to support the indefinite detention system centered at Guantanamo. It was part of an effort to hold suspected terrorists without access to any court.  That effort failed.  The Supreme Court has ruled that even non-citizens held as enemy combatants have a constitutional right to file a petition in a federal district court seeking their release from custody as long as Congress has not suspended habeas corpus (which it has not).  The Court has also ruled that U.S. citizens designated as enemy combatants are entitled to due process, which requires a hearing before a neutral decisionmaker who can determine whether they have been properly classified. It concluded that the president, acting pursuant to congressional authorization, could detain an enemy combatant outside the criminal justice system in order to keep enemy soldiers off the battlefield–however, it said, “indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized.”

The suggestion made by Sen. Graham and his colleagues, therefore, is as novel as it is irresponsible.  There is nothing to support the idea that Tsarnaev can be held outside the judicial system, without hearing or access to the courts, for interrogation.  In fact, the Supreme Court has rejected these propositions. Even if Tsarnaev could properly be classified as an enemy combatant, that would not mean that he would exist in a law-free zone.

As for the implication that trying Tsarnaev in federal court means he will remain “silent”, that too is incorrect.  There are reports that Tsarnaev communicated with investigators from his hospital bed and may already have provided useful information about the bombing plot.

Boston is a city with a rich legal tradition and a long respect for the rule of law.  John Adams believed that the rule of law had to apply to everyone–even those who are despised and accused of horrible crimes.  Adams defended British soldiers who had killed five colonists in the 1770 Boston Massacre.  He understood that there was no point to living in a lawless society.  Extending the rule of law to Dzohokhar Tsarnaev is not a sign of weakness, it is a sign of strength.  In responding to the threat posed by terrorism, there are many things we cannot control, but there are some we can.  We can decide whether we will remain a nation of laws.  The decision to place Tsarnaev in the criminal justice system is a good one.  President Obama ought to continue to reject calls to designate Tsarneav as an enemy combatant.

Chris Edelson is an assistant professor in American University’s School of Public Affairs, Department of Government, where he teaches classes on constitutional law. He’s also a lawyer and has published writing in the Philadelphia Inquirer, Washington Lawyer, Common Dreams, firedoglake.com, and Metroland (Albany, NY).

More articles by:
January 16, 2018
Mark Schuller
What is a “Shithole Country” and Why is Trump So Obsessed With Haiti?
Paul Street
Notes From a “Shithole” Superpower
Louisa Willcox
Keeper of the Flame for Wilderness: Stewart “Brandy” Brandborg
Mike Whitney
Trump’s Sinister Plan to Kill the Iranian “Nukes” Deal
Franklin Lamb
Kafkaesque Impediments to Challenging Iran’s Theocracy
Norman Solomon
Why Senator Cardin is a Fitting Opponent for Chelsea Manning
Fred Gardner
GI Coffeehouses Recalled: a Compliment From General Westmoreland
Brian Terrell
Solidarity from Central Cellblock to Guantanamo
Don Fitz
Bondage Scandal: Looking Beneath the Surface
Rob Seimetz
#Resist Co-opting “Shithole”
Ted Rall
Trump Isn’t Unique
January 15, 2018
Rob Urie
Democrats and the End(s) of Politics
Paul Tritschler
Killing Floor: the Business of Animal Slaughter
Mike Garrity
In Targeting the Lynx, the Trump Administration Defies Facts, Law, and Science Once Again
Thomas Hon Wing Polin
Hong Kong Politics: a Never-Ending Farce
Uri Avnery
Bibi’s Son (Or Three Men in a Car)
Dave Lindorff
Yesterday’s ‘Shithole Countries’ Can Become Classy Places Donald, and Vice Versa
Jeff Mackler
Lesser Evil Politics in Alabama
Jonah Raskin
Typewriters Still Smoking? An Interview with Underground Press Maven John Campbell McMillan
Jose-Antonio Orosco
Trump’s Comments Recall a Racist Past in Immigration Policy
David Macaray
Everything Seems to Be Going South
Kathy Kelly
41 Hearts Beating in Guantanamo
Weekend Edition
January 12, 2018
Friday - Sunday
George Burchett
Wormwood and a Shocking Secret of War: How Errol Morris Vindicated My Father, Wilfred Burchett
Roberto J. González
Starting Them Young: Is Facebook Hooking Children on Social Media?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Between the Null and the Void
Andrew Levine
Trump After Bannon: What Next?
John Davis
Mud-Slide
Ajamu Baraka
The Responsibility to Protect the World … from the United States
Robert Hunziker
Global Warming Stirs the Methane Monster
Paul Street
Lazy Liberals and “the Trump Effect”
Carmen Rodriguez
Trump’s Attack on Salvadoran Migrants
Mike Whitney
Oprah for President, Really?
Francisco Cabanillas
The Hurricane After Maria
Luciana Bohne
World War I: Crime and Punishment
Steve Martinot
The Ideology of Pepper Spray: Force and Violence in a Can
Martin Billheimer
Beyond the 120 Days of the Silicon Valley Dolls
Patrick T. Hiller
An Olympic Glimmer on the Horizon – North Korea and South Korea Stepping Down the Escalation Ladder
Ron Jacobs
The Vietnamese War: a Different Take
Binoy Kampmark
Fuming in the White House: the Bannon-Trump Implosion
Joseph Natoli
What to Worry About and What Not to Worry About
Colin Todhunter
Monsanto, Bayer and Neoliberalism: A Case of Hobson’s Choice
Brian Cloughley
Trump’s Bullying of Cuba
Kenneth Surin
Bigger in Texas
Arturo Desimone
The Untouchable Leader Who Stood Up to Gandhi
Peter Crowley
To Cheerleaders of Iran Protests: Iran is Not Our Enemy, a Sponsor of Terror or a Tyranny
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail