Yes, treat the terrorist as an enemy combatant

My new American Thinker post.

No one values due process more than I do.  After all, my dad's cousin spent 14 years in a Cuban prison without a trial.  I understand the arguments that people have certain rights.  There is no bigger right than being represented by an attorney or objecting to indefinite detention.

However, this young man in Boston is no political prisoner or US citizen who robbed a bank.  He was not picked up by a secret police for saying that Obama did not close Guantanamo.

He is a terrorist who joined forces with his older brother, and perhaps others, to fight the US. He left the Bill of Rights behind the moment that he placed a bomb and killed innocent people watching a traditional race.

So what do you have to do to get named an enemy combatant?   My guess is that most Americans agree that killing innocent people at the Boston Marathon is enough to be called an enemy combatant.  This guy is clearly an enemy and he is combating the US.

Here is the bottom line:  Dzhokhar will be convicted.  The evidence is pretty good.  He is even charged with killing a police officer.  We won't have much problem finding a jury that will find him guilty.

The real question is:  What does he know?  How can we get him to talk?

I agree with The Wall Street Journal:

"The important security issue isn't convicting Dzhokhar but finding out what he knows that might prevent a future attack or break up a terror network. This is where naming him an enemy combatant would be useful. Such a designation allows for extensive, long-term interrogation without a lawyer. Especially because President Obama has barred enhanced-interrogation techniques, such long-term psychological pressure can be crucial to learning if the brothers worked with anyone else, if they received terrorist training, and more."

We need to name him an enemy combatant so that we can gather some intelligence, or information about his potential allies and their plans. 

So let's send him down to GITMO for two reasons:

1) We need information: and,

2) We need to send a message that we understand that this is a war against the US not some guy involved in identity theft.

Does the Obama administration have the courage to upset the ACLU and the college professors? 

I hope so because this is about preventing the next attack not convicting the younger brother.

Click to hear Sunday's show:

Listen to internet radio with Silvio Canto Jr on Blog Talk Radio

 

---

Tags: Enemy combatant  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!

Boston: A lot of aggressive reporting from the UK media

We spoke with Bill Katz of Urgent Agenda on Sunday about the aftermath of the Boston terrorist attack.  

Bill brought to our attention that the UK media has reported some rather good information about the Boston terrorist act.

First, Peter Foster, the US Editor of The Telegraph, wrote that Pres Obama downplayed the threat over the last year:

"Mr Obama and his intelligence community know the threat from al-Qaeda affiliates, but have chosen to downplay it to the US public.

Even when that fight does directly touch on American lives, as it did last September when the US ambassador to Libya was murdered in Benghazi by an al-Qaeda linked group, the administration appears at pains to deny the connection."

Second, there is another story about the two brothers being a part of larger cell.   We will wait for further confirmation but I'm inclined to think that the two brothers had some help.

 Click here for our chat with Bill Katz of Urgent Agenda:

Listen to internet radio with Silvio Canto Jr on Blog Talk Radio

---

Tags: The Boston story and the UK media  To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the My View by Silvio Canto, Jr. Thanks!