The Watercooler ~ The Most Pertinent Questions in Boston Terrorism Case [Amended]

As we all continue to grapple with the who, what, where, when, how and why of the most successful terrorist attack in America since 9/11, two questions stand out as the most critical at this stage of the ensuing investigation.

The first question — whether Boston terrorism suspect and naturalized American citizen Dzhokar Tsarnaev, if he survives his injuries, should be detained within the domestic criminal justice system with all the rights that such detention entails, or be transferred to the control of the U.S. armed forces as an unlawful enemy combatant — is addressed thoroughly, including all of the legal ramifications, in this article at the American Center For Law and Justice.

The second question is did the FBI miss, overlook, or fail to adequately follow up on the intelligence they received on Tamerlan Tsarnaev — the now deceased older brother — in 2011? If so, how and why did this occur?

The Obama administration’s resolve and determination to get to the bottom of the Boston terrorism case will be seen in how thoroughly they handle addressing these questions.


AMENDED 4/21/2013 2:46 p.m. PST

I had some free time, did some more research and thought I would add a bit more relevant knowledge to the discussion of what to do with Dzhokar Tsarnaev.

For those who are most concerned about the danger of designating Dzhokar an enemy combatant, primarily because he is a U.S. naturalized citizen and is constitutionally protected to the rights of said citizens, after reviewing grounds for revocation of U.S. citizenship, it seems abundantly apparent to me that Dzhokar has committed acts that would qualify him for just such revocation:

A person is subject to revocation of naturalization if the person becomes a member of, or affiliated with, the Communist party, other totalitarian party, or terrorist organization within five years of his or her naturalization.[6] In general, a person who is involved with such organizations cannot establish the naturalization requirements of having an attachment to the Constitution and of being well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States.

While that would be the most egregious violation, it seems more than likely that he also engaged in willful misrepresentation of facts — also grounds for revocation — during the application for citizenship. I mean, chances are good that since his big brother returned from Russia in July of 2012, the same big brother was training him on how to make IED’s to attack the U.S. at the very time that he was granted citizenship in September of 2012.

Perhaps it would be appropriate to start there.

The Watercooler is always an open thread.