Lindsey Graham Calls For Boston Bombing Suspect To Be Held As ‘Enemy Combatant’

Huffington Post – by Matt Sledge

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) suggested on Friday that the Obama administration should toss the court system and Constitution out the window when handling the missing suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings.

In a series of tweets that came hours after it was revealed that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the suspect at large in the Boston marathon bombings, is a United States citizen, Graham urged the Obama administration to nevertheless consider treating him as an enemy combatant. The legal status has been used largely for members of al Qaeda and associated forces held at the Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, military facility and elsewhere. Graham also suggested that the Obama administration should use a drone to track any suspects in the case.

America is “a battlefield because the terrorists think it is,” Graham told The Washington Post. “It sure would be nice to have a drone up there.”

Graham’s tweets were just as provocative:

Lindsey Graham         @GrahamBlog

If captured, I hope Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes.

Lindsey Graham         @GrahamBlog

If the suspect has ties to overseas terror organizations he could be treasure trove of information.

The last thing we may want to do is read Boston suspect Miranda Rights telling him to “remain silent.”

The Obama Administration needs to be contemplating these issues and should not rush into a bad decision.

Tamerlan Tsarnaev, Dzhokhar’s brother who also was a suspect in Monday’s fatal attack, was killed Friday morning while on the run from police. No one, so far, has offered any evidence of a direct connection between either brother and al Qaeda, and at least one legal expert said the Obama administration simply wouldn’t consider the status change for Tsarnaev. The administration has, however, maintained that it can delay reading a Miranda warning to terrorists in exceptional cases.

The Obama administration has repeatedly refused to hold recent high-profile terrorist captures under military law. Both the so-called underwear bomber and Sept. 11 mastermind Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law were charged under civilian law. Neither was a U.S. citizen.

The administration also has stated that it would waive the use of enemy combatant status as it is described in the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 in a wide variety of circumstances.

“The current administration has a firm and publicly stated policy against using military detention for domestic captures or U.S. citizens. So whatever the (National Defense Authorization Act) may theoretically authorize or tolerate, it doesn’t affect this situation,” wrote Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow and research director in public law at the Brookings Institution.

The Obama administration may nevertheless feel politically pressured to charge the remaining suspect under military law, just as it did after the underwear bomber’s failed attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound plane.

Zeke Johnson, the director of Amnesty International USA’s Security with Human Rights Campaign, said that would be a lamentable response to the Boston bombing.

“Fear mongering is always the wrong response to tragedy. The right thing to do is fulfill the rights of victims and bring those responsible to justice through a fair trial,” Johnson said.

6 thoughts on “Lindsey Graham Calls For Boston Bombing Suspect To Be Held As ‘Enemy Combatant’

  1. I call for lindsey-gram To Be Held As ‘Enemy Combatant’. Ill even volunteer to waterboard him myself. Wont cost tax payer a penny(do they still make those?)

    1. They’ve had him on tape for a long time. They’ve shown the video. Same with McCain. They were blackmailed long ago.

      1. Lindsey is beiing blackmailed for his homosexuality and pedophilia. McCain is being blackmailed about his phony Vietnam POW B.S. His hospital care was A+1 once the big shots found out who he was. He screwed everything. He was protected.

  2. Guantanamo is not a Naval Base, it’s a naval reservation under the control of the chartered Corporation, Department of Defense.

    The detention Facility at Guantanamo is not a Naval Base, it’s a naval reservation, listed as division 10 of the Bureau of Insular Affairs, under the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico.


    No. 10. Puerto Rico, Vieques, Culebra, Virgin Islands and the *Naval Reservation, Guantanamo -San Juan, P. R.

    President Obama committed constructive fraud, and obstruction of Justice, in E.O No. 1392, when he called the reservation “the Naval Base at Guantanamo, incidentally, Pearl Harbor was a Naval Reservation prior to W.W. 2, under the control of the chartered Dept. of Navy.
    Ex. Ord. No. 13492
    ” Ex. Ord. No. 13492. Review and Disposition of Individuals Detained At the Guantanamo Bay *Naval Base and Closure of Detention Facilities”.

    Pub. L. 109–163, div. A, title XIV, §§ 1402, 1405, 1406, Jan. 6, 2006, 119 Stat. 3475, 3476, 3479, provided that:
    “(a) In General.—No person in the custody or under the effective control of the *Department of Defense or under detention in a Department of Defense facility shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by and listed in the United States Army Field Manual on Intelligence Interrogation.
    “(b) Applicability.—Subsection (a) shall not apply with respect to any person in the custody or under the effective control of the Department of Defense pursuant to a criminal law or immigration law of the United States.
    “(c) Construction.—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the rights under the United States Constitution of any person in the custody or under the physical jurisdiction of the United States.,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
    The above statement is a ruse, the real reason for the statement, is that the Army Field Manual is for the conduct of Military personnel, sometimes referred to as the Articles of War, applicable when Congress declares war. The detainees at Guantanamo are under the control of the Corporation, not the Military. So the Army Field Manual has no application.

    The break from the lawful detainees of prisoners of war (the defacto government)
    In 1912 there was a major break form the Army Field Manual, to deal with personnel that were not in the Military. These new Articles of War, The UCMJ and the Military Commission Act ( 10 USC 801) have some overlapping provisions and definitions contained in the Army Field Manual but the difference is profound. While Congress writes the laws for the Military, the President can amend the UCMJ or the MCA at will, since they don’t concern the Military. For a visual presentation of the facts, pull up the CSPAN video of President Obama repealing the “don’t ask don’t tell law”. The signing ceremony occurred in the Department of the Interior building, and the law was for the Armed Services (his exact words) later referred to as the armed forces, it appears the two terms are interchangeable, never the less, it didn’t concern the Military.

    The Army Field Manual in contrast to Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ and the MCA)

    Colonel Jonathan Williams
    President Adams appointed Williams a major in the Corps of Artillerists and Engineers in February 1801 and President Jefferson made him the Army’s Inspector of Fortifications and assigned him to lead the new Military Academy at West Point in December 1801. The following year Jefferson appointed him to command the separate Corps of Engineers established by Congress on March 16, 1802.
    Mr. Jefferson , didn’t dissolve the Army, he created a military appendage . The Army Field Manual was not modified by section 1342 listed below, section 1342, modified the Act, dated March 16 1802, it eliminated the Military, it was codified on Aug. 29, 1916, c. 18, § 3, 39 Stat. 650.) Philippine Islands. Amended in 1920, and again in 1948, by the Elston Act

    HENRY L. STIMSON, the Secretary of War, to the Military Committee, House of Representatives,

    In a letter submitted by HENRY L. STIMSON, the Secretary of War, to the Military Committee, House of Representatives, stated the purpose for the needed change.
    Washington, April 12, 1912.
    SIR: I have the honor to submit herewith a project of revision of
    section 1342 of the Revised Statutes-the Articles of War-and to
    request that, in the form in which approved by you, it be transmitted
    to the Congress with a request for its enactment. The necessity for revision will be best understood by a preliminary reference to the history of the present articles.
    1. not reproduced (really long)
    2. not reproduced
    3. not reproduced
    4. Articles 1, 10, 11, 12, 29, 30, 36, 37, 53, 76, 87, and 101 of the
    existing code have been omitted. Some of these articles have never
    met any real need in our *service, and may for all practical purposes be
    regarded as obsolete; others embrace only matters properly within
    the field of Army Regulations.

    ARTICLE 1. Every officer now in the Army of the United States shall,
    within six months from the passing of this act, and every officer hereafter
    appointed shall, before he enters upon the duties of his office, subscribe these
    rules and articles.
    Section 1342 of the Articles of War, eliminated the Military, the Articles were codified Aug. 29, 1916, c. 18, § 3, 39 Stat. 650.) Philippine Islands.

    IN 1948; the (Elston Act) modified section 1342 by section 47 of said Act
    “[… That section 1342 of the Revised Statutes of-the United States be , and the same is hereby repealed, and all laws and parts of laws insofar as they are inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed .]
    The request for the change came from the “*Bureau of Budget“ (*Commodity Credit Corporation).

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice, was reenacted by Congress in 1950,
    TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART II > CHAPTER 47 > SUBCHAPTER I > § 801
    Source (Statutes at Large)

    801 50:551 (less (9)). May 5, 1950, ch. 169, § 1 (Art. 1 (less (9))), 64 Stat. 108.
    The Uniform Code of Military Justice of 1950, 64 Stat. 107, as amended by the Military Justice Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 1335, 10 U.S.C. Sec. 801 et seq. For prior acts, see 12 Stat. 736 (1863); 39 Stat. 650 (1916).
    May 5 1950 chapter . 169, 64 Stat. 108, later codified by Act of Aug. 10, 1956,
    effective in 1951, , later codified by Act of Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 1, 36, and now, as amended, 10 U.S.C. $5 801-940 .
    Jurisdiction of the MCA
    Section 38, act June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title I, § 7, 40 Stat. 219, related to jurisdiction of courts-martial and military commissions.

    50 USC § 195. ‘‘United States’’ defined
    The term ‘‘United States’’ as used in this Act includes all territory and waters, continental or
    insular, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. (June 15, 1917, ch. 30, title XIII, § 1, 40 Stat. 231; Pub. L. 96–70, title III, § 3302(b), Sept. 27, 1979, 93 Stat. 498.)

    The MCA is limited to Naval Reservation
    Sección 1276d, act. Jul. 3, 1946, a.C. 536, SEC. 6, 60 SEAT. 419, renamed k.o. ownership Of. naval reservations, diplomatic property etc., and was transferred to section 1385 of Title 22. (note) 60 Stat. 419 applied to the Philippine Islands.
    Restriction on the use of the Military is contained in the Posse Comitatus Act, further restrictions apply to the Secretary of Defense because he’s in charge of the armed services/armed forces (construction division of the Corporation), and is not in charge of the Military. Any order to the Military to assist in the detention of anyone is usurpation of power, acting under the color of authority, and treason (importing foreign law) the Military is not subject to NATO or the U.N.. The NATO or U.N Treaty only deals with armed forces, not the Military. see War Powers Resolution passed in 1973.

    The Secretary of Defense has no authority over the military.

    32 CFR § 375. Restriction on direct participation by military personnel
    The Secretary of Defense shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to ensure that any activity (including the provision of any equipment or facility or the assignment or detail of any personnel) under this chapter does not include or permit direct participation by a member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps in a search, seizure, arrest, or other similar activity unless participation in such activity by such member is otherwise authorized by law .

Join the Conversation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *