The Baby-Faced Bomber

Ms. Estrich wrote: "He is also not an enemy combatant by any definition, nor do we need to treat him as one in order to ensure that justice is done."

Assuming no additional evidence comes to light, I have to agree. This jerk is no more an enemy combatant than Timothy McVeigh was. Let us hope he meets the same end as that felon did.

Re: Old Navy
You're both right - they (bombers) didn't yell 'Allah Akbar'!

Oh how Estrich speaks softly to the naïve and to the gullible in order to deceive.

This is what Estrich knows:

the term “unlawful enemy combatant” [shortened by some like Estrich and Graham and McCain for convenience to “enemy combatant”] is a term of art [a word or phrase that has a particular meaning in a particular context, particularly in law]

It exists only because the Bush administration, in the War on Terror, rightly required a legal term for the Islamic savages and animals now caged like the animals they are in Gitmo, which should be detained indefinitely, which are undeserving of the rights of soldiers under the Geneva conventions and which have no right to access to our courts or to the Constitutional rights of an American citizen.

The foreshortened term of art “enemy combatant” means particularly “an individual who was part of or supporting Taliban or al Queada forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners..” per the widely accepted definition by Federal Judge Richard Leon in 2008.

Because the “baby faced bomber” [see how Estrich and the left instantly tries to humanize this fu*king monster] is a naturalized American citizen, he cannot be classified as an “enemy combatant”.

Those morons Graham and McCain and others calling for such classification know only too well that such classification is impossible because those very same morons helped draft the 2009 law that prevents “the baby faced Islamic savage” from being declared “enemy combatant”.

That said it is only under the term of art, devised for a specific purpose that the “baby faced Islamic savage” is not an enemy combatant.

By any other definition or normal use of language the murderous savage little sh*t most certainly is a Jihadist, an enemy and a combatant.

A few ordinary and entirely applicable dictionary definitions.

Jihad; “A holy war waged on behalf of Islam” Check.

Jidhadist: The adjective for a Muslim waging holy war on behalf of Islam. Check.

Enemy: “One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another: a foe” Check.

Combatant. “ One, that takes part in armed strife, a person engaged in or prepared for a fight, struggle or dispute, engaged in or ready for combat.” Check.

I need not rehearse all the known facts, but on the known facts, and giving plain English words their plain ordinary meaning the “baby faced monster” was, without doubt, a Jihadist enemy combatant.

The question is therefore posed as to why Estrich would posit that “He is not an enemy combatant by any definition..” when clearly he is under the plain ordinary, non term of art, meaning of the words enemy combatant.

The answer is clear for anyone who would see.

Estrich and the left simply continue the charade that Islam is religion of peace, that Islam means us no harm, and continue, for whatever reason to try to convince us that Islam is not at war with America and with all Americans and do so when the facts plainly say otherwise. The left's political correctness and rush to appease those that would destroy us never ceases to amaze.

As to “nor do we need to treat him as one in order to ensure that justice is done”… Depends what one terms justice!

Will he be prosecuted, yes! Will he be sentenced to death as he should be? Maybe ! Most likely not !

Who knows what will happen when Holder's Department of leftist Just us” gets it? Who knows how Holder's Just us Dept will screw it up?

Who knows what bleeding heart terrorist and jihadist defending lawyer (perhaps one from Holder's old firm that has a history of such matters) will step up for the “baby faced Jihadist monster” ? Who knows what technicality will intervene? Can anyone say Miranda?

Will full justice be served upon his mentors, his enablers, his culpable Islamic fellow travelers of the Islamic Society of Boston which has known links to terror? If Estrich and her ilk have it their way. NO!.

JW wrote: "A few ordinary and entirely applicable dictionary definitions...

Enemy: “One who feels hatred toward, intends injury to, or opposes the interests of another: a foe” Check.

Combatant. “ One, that takes part in armed strife, a person engaged in or prepared for a fight, struggle or dispute, engaged in or ready for combat.” Check..."

This redefinition of an "enemy combatant" is remarkably broad. It fits just about everyone from Jack the Ripper to Timothy McVeigh! In fact, it would fit just about anyone who commits a violent crime. Why do you feel the need to dilute the meaning of the term like this and makes it absolutely useless? Why do you feel the need to shoe-horn these two losers into this category?

If and when it is shown that the Boston Bombers were actually members of either a foreign countries armed forces or of the Taliban/Al Queada, I'll agree to call them 'enemy combatants'. Until then, I'll avoid mangling the English language and I'll just call them criminals or terrorists. Calling them anything else is too good for them and risks making them seem far more glamorous than they actually are.

Re: Old Navy

I say what I say because it is true and it remains true whether you like it or not.

It is noted that you chose or were forced to ignore the first two definitions of Jihad and Jihadism which were purposely given to set the parameters, to set the context and to avoid some politically correct dunce overly broadening the definition. Seems not to have stopped you. Still, just par for the course.

And No, you are not avoiding mangling the English language. That is just your escape route, the path of least resistance, the easy way out. What you are doing is willfully ignoring reality and surrendering to the political correctness of the left.

What you are really doing, is refusing to acknowledge that an ideology, to wit, Islam, which is no more than a murderous political ideology bent on domination and submission dressed up as a religion of peace, is the enemy.
What you are doing is refusing to acknowledge that those you would like to call criminals/terrorists have, in the vast majority been adherents of Islam.

What you are refusing to acknowledge is that whether, those adherents be members of the armed force of a foreign Muslim State or members of the Taliban or of Al Quaeda or those directly influenced by Al Quaeda or influenced by Al Quaeda sympathizers or by America hating Muslim clerics, they are Islam's combatants and the enemy.

JW wrote: "What you are doing is willfully ignoring reality and surrendering to the political correctness of the left."

You surely love building straw men and then burning them down. I've never said that Jihadism isn't a dangerous and murderous political philosophy. What I do believe is that terrorism is a crime and individuals who practice it should be hunted down and punished. I think this should be done regardless of the reason they give for committing their crimes (i.e., Tim McVeigh, the DC sniper, the Baader-Meinhof gang, and the Boston bombers are all criminals and should be captured, tried, and executed).

I am also well aware that the vast majority of today's terrorists are Jihadists just as in the 70's and 80's the bulk of the terrorists were left wing loonies (e.g., Shining Path, Baader Meinhof, etc...).

That having been said, I don't think all Moslems are Jihadists anymore than all right wingers are like McVeigh or all Irishmen are members of the IRA.

Further, I don't see any need to trash the Constitution to take care of the Jihadist nut cases. If, when we catch them, they are US citizens, I'm happy to send them to the civil courts. If they are foreign nationals, I'm happy to consider sending them to military courts.

You need to stop building straw men out of other peoples beliefs. Neither Ms. Estrich or myself have directly expressed any of the belief you have subscribed to us. Stick to criticizing what we say, not what you think we secretly believe.

Re: Old Navy
The kettle calls the pot black. I suggest that what we see in your post is a little mirroring. Subscribing unto me your own traits. The setting up of straw man arguments has and remains your modus not mine.

You may not have noticed but I pointed that matter out to you in my last post by noting your conscious omission of my parameter setting definitions of jihad and jihadism. Indeed even in your latest offering you set up another a straw man of me subscribing beliefs to you when I plainly did no such thing.

I know what Estrich believes because she has, in court, actually defended funding jihad as a First Amendment right.

But lets look at what you say you believe.
1. You say you believe that the vast majority of today's terrorists are jihadists.
2. You say you believe that all Muslims are not jihadists.
3. You say you believe that there is no need to "trash the Constitution" to take care of the Jihadist nutcases.

The word Jihadist is used in describing your beliefs. It seems then that the word Jihad needs to be properly understood.

In simple terms, Jihad is the noun meaning struggle. It is an important religious duty for all Muslims, sometimes called the sixth pillar of Islam. The struggle may be an inner spiritual struggle or an outer physical struggle. The inner struggle is one in which the Islamist struggles to fulfill his religious duties [which may per the Quran include violence] and the outer physical struggle, that is the struggle against what the Islamist sees as the enemies of Islam. The struggles are not mutually exclusive. So to believe that all Muslims are not Jihadists in some form, while that is your prerogative, is misguided.

Granted, Jihad may not for all Islamists translate to violent action by them in the form of "holy war". Not all Muslims are running around blowing people up. But I believe it does for the majority translate to support for or at least tacit approval of "holy war" by those prepared to resort to actual violence against whom they perceive to be enemies of Islam.

This is why one will rarely see any mass outward or widespread condemnation or demonstration against the actions of the "holy warriors", those you like to call the terrorists, by Muslims in general or by terror enabling organizations like CAIR or the Muslim Brotherhood, which have a real foothold in the Admin.

You believe as you choose, I shall continue to trust in what I know to be true.

Other than to take issue with the notion that all Muslims are not jihadists in one of its forms (matter 2 above) we are agreed on the matters numbered 1 and 3. In my first post I agreed that because the Boston bomber was an naturalized American citizen it was impossible for him to be tried as an "enemy combatant" as contemplated by the term of art which I took trouble to describe. Perhaps I should have said should not.

I believe that the provisions of the Constitution express the rights of all US Citizens, whether natural born or naturalized and should be applied equally without fear or favor even to the unfortunately surviving Boston bomber and even though to my mind he is de facto a combatant in the name if Islam, if not an "enemy combatant" under the legal term of art.

Which brings me full circle. On the instant matters you hold beliefs similar to my own, but you and many like you, seem to refuse to directly connect the dots to the Islam ideology or if having made the connection refuse to to speak it, preferring instead to talk about common criminals and terrorists in the general sense.

It was expressed well by Dan Gainor in a piece describing how the Media blames America for the Boston Bombings and ignores ties to Islam as follows [And I am not in any suggesting that you, Old Navy. blame America. Estrich probably does.]

" On Tuesday Alex Wagner said "if the brothers acted alone it ends the debate regarding whether to try him as an enemy combatant. Wrote Mediate "With no ties to foreign terrorist networks, there would be no difference between him and so called homegrown and lone wolf terrorists including Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, Only neither of those was motivated by a global belief system linked to hundreds or thousands of terror attacks....Perhaps instead of being PC they might address the issue of radical Islam"

It continues to seem to me that by your words and comments, which belie the beliefs stated in your last post, that you remain in PC mode, channeling Wagner and Mediate, blaming terror in general and ignoring the elephant in the room.

I rest my argument.

The problem with labeling someone an "enemy combatant", is that it assumes that they are guilty. In this country you are innocent until proven guilty no matter how heinous your crime. Now once they are found guilty, its a whole different matter. But we cannot abandon due process and we should not shread the Constitution or civil liberties any more than they have already been. When we do that, the terrorist have acheived their goal.

Re: Chris McCoy
If the world sees you planting a bomb that explodes and you admit to doing it YOU ARE GUILTY. Trial is for show.
The constitution says that you are innocent because it doesn't have eyes.
If people who don't represent a country but rather a sect declare war on us are they criminals or enemy combatants?

Re: Chris McCoy

Chris, although you are not responding to me and to be clear I have never suggested the abandonment of due process.

Terrorist goals are already being achieved for them by those who have sworn to uphold the Constitution, by the Dept of Homeland Security and by EPA.

By referring to shredding civil liberties and the terrorists achieving their goals I take it that you also referring to Bloomberg and many like minded libs using the Boston attacks by Islamist "holy warriors" to assert that the Constitution needs to be interpreted differently, that there is a new normal that requires restriction of freedoms in general, requires more cameras and more federal government intrusion and edict, requires the reading of e mails and the like, requires controls on what one can buy, for example ammunition and gun power and requires unlimited uncontrolled immigration without effective border security.

That the whole city of Boston was unnecessarily brought to a standstill by Government because of two Jihadists on the loose is proof positive to other like minded animals that the goal of inflicting physical and financial damage is easily achieved.

JW wrote: "Granted, Jihad may not for all Islamists translate to violent action ... But I believe it does for the majority translate to support for or at least tacit approval of "holy war" by those prepared to resort to actual violence against whom they perceive to be enemies of Islam...This is why one will rarely see any mass outward or widespread condemnation or demonstration against the actions of the "holy warriors"..."

A far simpler explanation for a lack of "widespread comdemnation" is that most individuals are afraid to call themselves to the attention of the violent nuts. Would you stand up and call these people out knowing full well that they would probably pay you a visit and that your neighbors and the local authorities would be unlikely to come to your defense? The continued existence of the mafia in some locales is a good example of this kind of 'tacit approval'. It is coerced, not voluntary.

JW also wrote: "...Wrote Mediate "With no ties to foreign terrorist networks, there would be no difference between him and so called homegrown and lone wolf terrorists including Timothy McVeigh and Ted Kaczynski, Only neither of those was motivated by a global belief system linked to hundreds or thousands of terror attacks....Perhaps instead of being PC they might address the issue of radical Islam"


I don't think that anyone doubts that Islam exists and that it produces a cohort of terrorists/Jihadists that want to intimidate and/or kill infidels. I certainly don't. So what is the 'issue' you want to addressed? What are your proposed solutions?

Joesph you and I seem to be on the same page here. Oldtimer however seems on a very slippery slope to tyranny. Thats what the terrorist want. To convince sensible, conservative minded people into using statist type arguements in the name of security. If someone is trying to inflict harm on you in the heat of the moment, then you have the right/duty to stop them. But if you have them captured, you have to give them due process regardless of what happened. People can get facts wrong. People see things differently. People say false things. Until the facts are sorted out this guy still has the right to a FAIR trial, not theatrics or a media circus. Also, when you abandon due process, you make it easy for terrorists to frame people. Some terrorist could disguise himself as old timer and blow a train station. I'm willing to bet you'd really like to tell your side of the story if that were the case.

Re: Old Navy

The mafia (Sicilian or Italian) which is no more than a criminal for monetary profit organization does not draw support or guidance from catholic ideology or teaching as Islamic terrorists draw support and guidance from the Quran and the religion of Islam for their hateful actions. Again you revert to the easy PC way out by relativizing and referring to the mafia.

Each time you reply you continue make my point for me.

You do not doubt that Islam the ideology produces a cohort of terrorists that want to intimidate or kill infidels but yet, when you see those Islamic terrorists in action, you resort to the PC way out by talking about common criminals, criminal behavior, terrorists in the wider sense and home grown terrorists rather than hit the issue head on and call the Islamists and their enablers out for what they are, to wit, Islam's holy warriors on jihad.

One cannot defeat an enemy if one refuses to first identify it and then identify it fearlessly on every occasion. Security depends upon vigilance and the observation of one's know enemies.

As it was said by Benjamin Franklin " Distrust and caution are the parents of security"

The issue and danger is PC and relativism. The solution is speaking the truth.

JW stated: "The mafia (Sicilian or Italian) which is no more than a criminal for monetary profit organization does not draw support or guidance from catholic ideology or teaching as Islamic terrorists draw support and guidance from the Quran and the religion of Islam for their hateful actions. Again you revert to the easy PC way out by relativizing and referring to the mafia."

This is a complete non sequitor. I had pointed out that the Moslem population may feel intimidated by the violent nature of the Jihadist's and that that might account for their failure to produce "widespread condemnation". I cited the mafia as an example of just such a violent group coercing otherwise decent people into silence. You attack the example on the basis that it doesn't involve religion.

So? My example doesn't need to involve religion. It doesn't need to a perfect analogy. It serves to make the point that the violent nature of a group alone could induce silence. Such a weak response indicates I must have won on this point.

Further, when asked what issue concerning 'radical Islam' he wanted addressed and what the possible solutions were, JW stated: "The issue and danger is PC and relativism. The solution is speaking the truth."

Banal. You could have added that 'a stitch in time saves nine.' This adage is similar to your response in that it has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

So, I'll ask the question again. What specific actions do you recommend to deal with the problem of "radical Islam"? Deportation? Forced conversion? Massive surveillance programs? Be specific.

He MAY not be Taliban or Al Queada, but he hates Americans. His goal is to kill as many Americans as possible So what is he?

Was the goal of these 2 brothers to kill as many Americans as possible? Well then they could have timed the bomb a heck of a lot better, like when runners started to cross the finish line. Or they should have just drove an SUV up on a busy sidewalk and started shooting and running over people. Or suicide vested a big crowd. No, the goal was to create fear. To have us lose ourselves in a sea of security measures that hurt us way more than any terrorist.